Children Receiving Blood of Christ

  • Thread starter Thread starter yorkieville
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Y

yorkieville

Guest
Hello, Everyone.

I am a Eucharistic Minister in the Roman Catholic Church.

When I was trained, I was told not to give the Blood of Christ to children under the age of 18.

The situation had never arisen, until this past week.

A lady and her daughter, from another church, come to our church, one morning a week, because their church does not have a morning mass that day.

I am familiar with pretty much everyone that attends, weekday mornings, but this lady nor her daughter, speak to anyone.

I “think” the daughter is between the age of 10-12.

Their usual habit is that Mother and daughter go to Communion, and when the Mother comes to me, for the Blood of Christ, the daughter returns to her pew.

This time though, the Mother came up, alone. I didn’t think anything of it, but then, as I was offering to the last 2 people, the child was in the line, 2nd to last. And she came to me, for the Blood of Christ.

I was caught off-guard, and simply blessed her. (Our Pastor has us bless those that come up with their arms crossed. This is a change, as the E.M.'s never used to do the blessing.)

Uncertain that I had done the right thing, I went to my new Pastor and he said to give the Blood of Christ to anyone that comes to me, because in his words, “It is not complete without the Blood of Christ”.

He said that the way I was trained was “just another Priests teachings, not the Church’s”.

I am in agreement with him that all should receive the Blood of Christ, if they desire it.

I’m just curious as to what is the practice in other Roman Catholic Church’s.

I also feel, I should apologize to the child, and explain the way I was trained. I feel as though I surely must have offended her, or confused her, or embarrassed her. Since her Mother is not the least bit friendly, I thought I would just buy a nice card, and give it to them, quietly before mass. I certainly don’t want them to feel, unwelcome.

TIA

Yours in Christ,
Sheila
 
I think your plan is very nice and would be an appreciated gesture.

Your priest is right that you should not have refused to give the girl the cup. But the Eucharist is complete in either or both forms (just host, just cup or both). He may have been referring to the writings of the fuller sign of Communion under both kinds. These days, with all the swine flu restrictions, hopefully no one believes they are not getting the complete Eucharist without receiving from the cup.

As long as someone is properly disposed they should receive Communion is they request it. A person could not be properly disposed for the host but not the cup.
 
I just saw last week at Mass during communion children around six or seven years old receiving . Our parish receives the blood only at Christmas and Easter due to spillage problems. Going back to the children, their parents bring them to communion to receive the host the children had no clue what to do with the hosts, a friend of mine had to stop them and correct them of the situation which ended up as offensive. I say the parents lacked catechesis of their faith and the children probably have never been to Catholic school or CCD classes. Some parishes I’ve been to have appeared to be a social playground due to much lack of reverence and mockery at masses in which many people don’t acknowledge the body blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. I’m in my forties and got back to church in 2001 I see many people between 50-70 years average chattering in the church sleeping during mass and walking out the door right afetr receiving communion. I do understand not disturbing the mass out of respect Our priests and bishops can only do so much as it is also up to us lay faithful to be responsible witnesses. Mass is not hello Jesus and throw him back in the closet until the next Sunday. Mass is the missa,missio or mission. Jesus is our King of kings and Lord of lords
 
<< I was told not to give the Blood of Christ to children under the age of 18.>>

Why?

Usually in the Melkite Church I attend, baptized infants are communen in one kind–with the Precious Blood. Generally the priest sticks his little finger in the chalice and the little ones suck or lick it off.

I’ve seen one of our bishops use a small spoon from the travelling Communion set for the same purpose. That might be better.
 
Corki said:
I think your plan is very nice and would be an appreciated gesture.

Your priest is right that you should not have refused to give the girl the cup. But the Eucharist is complete in either or both forms (just host, just cup or both). He may have been referring to the writings of the fuller sign of Communion under both kinds. These days, with all the swine flu restrictions, hopefully no one believes they are not getting the complete Eucharist without receiving from the cup.

As long as someone is properly disposed they should receive Communion is they request it. A person could not be properly disposed for the host but not the cup.
Click to expand...
Thank you. I just truly feel bad about the situation.

I agree that as long as somenone is properly disposed, they should receive, both the Host and the Cup.

I just wondered, if other church’s have priests that make their own rules about this matter.

Yours in Christ,
Sheila
 
johns58w said:
I just saw last week at Mass during communion children around six or seven years old receiving . Our parish receives the blood only at Christmas and Easter due to spillage problems. Going back to the children, their parents bring them to communion to receive the host the children had no clue what to do with the hosts, a friend of mine had to stop them and correct them of the situation which ended up as offensive. I say the parents lacked catechesis of their faith and the children probably have never been to Catholic school or CCD classes. Some parishes I’ve been to have appeared to be a social playground due to much lack of reverence and mockery at masses in which many people don’t acknowledge the body blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. I’m in my forties and got back to church in 2001 I see many people between 50-70 years average chattering in the church sleeping during mass and walking out the door right afetr receiving communion. I do understand not disturbing the mass out of respect Our priests and bishops can only do so much as it is also up to us lay faithful to be responsible witnesses. Mass is not hello Jesus and throw him back in the closet until the next Sunday. Mass is the missa,missio or mission. Jesus is our King of kings and Lord of lords
Click to expand...
See, that is what threw me off, usually, the girl is with her Mother.

I have also seen the same irreverence in church; people chatting during mass, as if they were at a social gathering.

Thanks for your reply.

Yours in Christ,
Sheila
 
Cluny said:
<< I was told not to give the Blood of Christ to children under the age of 18.>>

Why?

Usually in the Melkite Church I attend, baptized infants are communen in one kind–with the Precious Blood. Generally the priest sticks his little finger in the chalice and the little ones suck or lick it off.

I’ve seen one of our bishops use a small spoon from the travelling Communion set for the same purpose. That might be better.
Click to expand...
I don’t believe he had given me an explanation.

We receive the Host and the Cup every day.

Yours in Christ,
Sheila
 
I have never, ever heard of a rule that only those over 18 can receive the Precious Blood. We do offer the Eucharist under both species at our parish and the children are offered that as well as adults.
 
CB_Catholic said:
I have never, ever heard of a rule that only those over 18 can receive the Precious Blood. We do offer the Eucharist under both species at our parish and the children are offered that as well as adults.
Click to expand...
I have heard from others that it is not done, due to spillage, however, as an E.M., I am very careful, and if someone comes to me, that seems shaky, I am always willing to help steady the Cup with them. And I always receive a smile of appreciation.

I’m so happy our new Pastor goes by the church’s teachings.

I’ve only been in this church a year, as my husband and I had relocated.

Yours In Christ,
Sheila
 
a child who has made first communion is entitled to receive in the same manner as other communicants. If the chalice is offered to the congregation it should be offered to all, and in fact the priest has the duty to make sure enough wine is consecrated so half the people don’t have the opportunity. If the pastor detects a problem-spillage, too much left over, lack of reverence, flu worries-he should stop offering the chalice at all, and is within his rights, but there is no canon law basis for discriminating on the basis of age. He can solve all those problems by administering through intinction, which would require that he and the other priests and deacons be the only ministers. That eliminates all problems, especially if they use vessels especially designed for this purpose. I am confused as to why this is being discussed on this forum since typically tradional Masses do not use extraordinary ministers and the chalice is not ordinarily offered except on special occasions like first communions or weddings.
 
yorkieville said:
I agree that as long as somenone is properly disposed, they should receive, both the Host and the Cup.
Click to expand...
You are not the only one who agrees:
Can. 912 Any baptized person not prohibited by law can and must be admitted to holy communion.
But NB: The only person who needs receive both the species of bread and wine is the celebrating priest – The remainder of the faithful who are admitted to communion do so at their own discretion, and there is nothing “wrong” with a person who opts to receive under only a single species.

tee
 
I run the Sacrament prep for children at our parish. Before their 1st HC, we let them sample the unconsecrated bread and wine so they are familiar with it on the ‘big day’. Until recently I have not heard of anyone spilling the Sacred Blood. The one recent accident was a small fumble between an EM and and altar server behind the altar.

On a side note- This week our parish (and I believe most of our diocese) stopped distributing the Sacred Blood at Mass - due to the flu bugs.
 
I think this raises the bigger question of: why? Christ is completely consumed/present in the Host…Insisting on receiving the Blood of Christ just obscures this Truth. What’s the point? Why even offer the Blood routinely? There are just way, way too many chances of error at such a routine practice, and too many chances of spillage, abuse, etc.
Another concern rarely mentioned is infection control: how in the world do we prevent transmission of infectious disease when several hundred people drink out of the same vessel? There is scant alcohol in it to provide sufficient anit-microbial activity. Wiping most likely does nothing. No, it just doesn’t make sense to offer communion under both species.
 
timcri said:
I No, it just doesn’t make sense to offer communion under both species.
Click to expand...
yes it does, through intinction, which eliminates all these potential problems and has the added benefit of eliminating EMHCs a development devoutly to be wished.
 
Since it isn’t really anything other than wine, and no matter what you catholics (just saying that word – catholic – makes me cringe, like I’m uttering an obsenity) may claim to believe, a few magic words said by a man isn’t going to change it into anything else other than what it is, an alcoholic beverage. I don’t believe it is rightly given to anyone under the age of twenty-one under any circumstances in the USA since it is illegal to serve such a beverage to a minor.

Doubting Tomas

(No longer doubting really. All religion is nothing more than more than delusion at best or deliberate fraud at worst.)
 
But why do you believe the wine is instilled with the presence of Jesus blood?
 
It isn’t instilled with the presence of Jesus’ blood, it becomes Jesus’ blood. The reason we believe this is because Jesus told us so when he instituted the Eucharist. 🙂 The concept is called “transubstantiation”.
 
I know transubstantiation, I was a Catholic. We know the wine remains wine in material terms, I thought it better to regard it as instilled, since we can receive Jesus blood and the bread of life by faith and prayer without any bread or fruit of the vine.

I know you believe it is changed through the priest and his having been ordained by the laying on of hands, by others who were had the same laying on of hands as a tradition from Peter and Paul carried down in connection since the first century.

But there should be other evidence as with Timothy, not only actions and history, but actual impartation of the Holy Spirit. Healings, strong inner changes in a period of weeks or years…

I received the wine in mass years ago, and I received Jesus blood by faith and prayer at the time. The latter was an experience of inner change and freeing.

I believe that there is an instilling in some masses where the priest has sought the Holy Spirit and believes, but not every priest has this, they need God, not a long distance cable to the first century. God here now Acts 17:26,27.

Acts 1:8, you shall receive power. How?

I doubt the conducting via thousands of ordainments, not after the 8th century and the politicization of the church, pomp, wars. Then burnings at the stakes and witch hunts…

I am sure as well that there was never any transubstantiation. The teaching is an error.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top