Children Receiving Blood of Christ

[PattiDay]

This thread has been helpful for me. I was asked to volunteer as a EM, for which I felt unprepared (no training was offered) and unworthy to do as a recently returned Catholic still reaquainting myself with the church of my childhood. I feel forgiven, blessed, and deeply moved to have this privilege. Initially I was surprised by the casualness that some recipients exhibit. Some take the chalice roughly, and make no eye contact or response. Some don’t look at the chalice, but grab, sip, and stick out their hand to return the chalice while turning to leave. I’m becoming more comfortable with the individual ways people receive as I have more opportunities to serve. As for children, some approach with a very touching childlike reverence, while others seem like they haven’t a clue. Since parents are accompanying these children, I have to assume that they have discussed with the child that this truly is the precious blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, so they are not just trying to mimic the adults.

 

[Cluny]

<<I know you believe it is changed through the priest and his having been ordained by the laying on of hands,>>

Actually, the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ by the Holy Spirit.

How were you seduced from the simplicity of the Gospel to follow the neo-monatanist mystery of iniquity?

 

[iamanea]

Sheila:

Your concern for not wanting to offend is proper and well founded. I would say your actions were very appropriate.

I do know that children in the Eastern Catholic rites ARE given communion under both species. Their practice is to administer Baptism, first Communion, and Confirmation at the same time in infancy. I assume they give the blood only to infants as they are too small to swallow “bread” and might choke (although it is so saturated that it is very easy to swallow - easier than our (Latin hosts).

In the Eastern Catholic rites they used leavened bread which is floating in the “wine” and spooned into the communicates mouth who kneels slightly, tilts their head back and opens wide.

It is also Catholic teaching that any baptised Catholic, even an infant, can receive Communion and Confirmation in danger of death (a former professor of mine’s child had cancer as an infant and received communion and confirmation - he was cured of his cancer and made a full recovery (as of five years ago. I don’t know his situation now).

The main concern I see with children recieving the cup is that they are not of the legal age to drink. The Eucharist still bears the effects of its visible material form - i.e. one can still get drunk from receiving the cup and one can spread germs and illness from drinking from the cup while ill (why the Church urges the faithful not to do so if ill). I don’t know of any specific Church teaching and thus would think it is a policy not a hard fast teaching.

This is just my opinion for what it is worth.

Corry

 

[Logan5]

Actually, the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ by the Holy Spirit

I know this, the priest is ordained, so to receive the Holy Spirit, for the purpose of Him moving over the bread in mass. But there is nothing to create, I believe it is meant to be an outpouring, and instilling of what already is and has been done. The uncreated, self existent Christ, and His blood, in spiritual presence, actual and local. And maybe, I need yet look and find about that element of the blood that is more associated with Jesus and His humanity, that was created. Which is now glorious to the highest degree.

I am sure that if we receive Jesus blood, as in the early church, that wonders happen, evident strong spiritual enriching, or “some who fall asleep” from taking the body and blood in sin.

The move of the Holy Spirit is a more important concept than changing power. Bread can’t become spirit and God.

How were you seduced from the simplicity of the Gospel to follow the neo-monatanist mystery of iniquity?

Not familiar with you latter terms.

The Catholic Gospel is quite developed, and not simple, found in multiplied volumes.

I chose to seek receiving God presence and power, more than I had as a Catholic. For the assurance of salvation from sin and Hell. To be healed, changed and equiped for service.

I found God and many prophetic words in earnest zeal, and also Jealousy and opinions as I progressed. Injuring me and leaving me retarded as a Christian. And erring power ministry.

To me, the simplicity of the Gospel is found in the first century practice, and the great changes and Catholic development is like a new Gospel, a catechism, and a philosophy, lacking the real power of the direct Gospel.

 

[Corki]

I know this, the priest is ordained, so to receive the Holy Spirit, for the purpose of Him moving over the bread in mass. But there is nothing to create, I believe it is meant to be an outpouring, and instilling of what already is and has been done. The uncreated, self existent Christ, and His blood, in spiritual presence, actual and local. And maybe, I need yet look and find about that element of the blood that is more associated with Jesus and His humanity, that was created. Which is now glorious to the highest degree.

I am sure that if we receive Jesus blood, as in the early church, that wonders happen, evident strong spiritual enriching, or “some who fall asleep” from taking the body and blood in sin.

The move of the Holy Spirit is a more important concept than changing power. Bread can’t become spirit and God.

Not familiar with you latter terms.

The Catholic Gospel is quite developed, and not simple, found in multiplied volumes.

I chose to seek receiving God presence and power, more than I had as a Catholic. For the assurance of salvation from sin and Hell. To be healed, changed and equiped for service.

I found God and many prophetic words in earnest zeal, and also Jealousy and opinions as I progressed. Injuring me and leaving me retarded as a Christian. And erring power ministry.

To me, the simplicity of the Gospel is found in the first century practice, and the great changes and Catholic development is like a new Gospel, a catechism, and a philosophy, lacking the real power of the direct Gospel.

Logan,

If you want to debate transubstantiation, please go start a thread in the Apologetics forum. For purposes of this discussion, the bread and wine ARE changed to the Body and Blood of Christ and transubstantiation is not a matter of debate.

 

[Logan5]

Okay, end the digression here then.

 

[benedictgal]

First of all, with all due respect to the OP, you are not a Eucharistic Minister. The correct term is Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion, per Redemptionis Sacramentum:

[156.] This function is to be understood strictly according to the name by which it is known, that is to say, that of extraordinary minister of Holy Communion, and not “special minister of Holy Communion” nor “extraordinary minister of the Eucharist” nor “special minister of the Eucharist”, by which names the meaning of this function is unnecessarily and improperly broadened.

The celebrant (priest/bishop) is the Eucharistic Minister because only he can confect (cause to happen) the Sacrament. The deacon, by virtue of Holy Orders, is an ordinary minister of Holy Communion, along with the priest and bishop.

Second, a child who has already received First Holy Communion should not be denied the option of receiving under both species. Puzzleannie already gave a solid explanation for this.

Now, regarding the blessing in lieu of receiving Holy Communion, this should not be happening, nor should you be imparting this. Please note that the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments made the following five observations:

1. The liturgical blessing of the Holy Mass is properly given to each and to all at the conclusion of the Mass, just a few moments subsequent to the distribution of Holy Communion.

1. Lay people, within the context of Holy Mass, are unable to confer blessings. These blessings, rather, are the competence of the priest (cf. Ecclesia de Mysterio, Notitiae 34 (15 Aug. 1997), art. 6, § 2; Canon 1169, § 2; and Roman Ritual De Benedictionibus (1985), n. 18).

1. Furthermore, the laying on of a hand or hands — which has its own sacramental significance, inappropriate here — by those distributing Holy Communion, in substitution for its reception, is to be explicitly discouraged.

1. The Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio n. 84, “forbids any pastor, for whatever reason to pretext even of a pastoral nature, to perform ceremonies of any kind for divorced people who remarry”. To be feared is that any form of blessing in substitution for communion would give the impression that the divorced and remarried have been returned, in some sense, to the status of Catholics in good standing.

1. In a similar way, for others who are not to be admitted to Holy Communion in accord with the norm of law, the Church’s discipline has already made clear that they should not approach Holy Communion nor receive a blessing. This would include non-Catholics and those envisaged in can. 915 (i.e., those under the penalty of excommunication or interdict, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin).

Children who have not yet received First Holy Communion fall under observation #5. As an EMHC, your prohibition comes in #1, #2 and #3. With all due respect, your pastor does not have the authority to engage in this kind of practice.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

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

Any person who has received their First Holy Communion can approach Communion and receive, that includes children. (it even includes very small children of Eastern Rite Catholics receiving a small piece of a Host). as an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion generally you should give Communion to anyone who approaches and generally acts like they know what they are doing.

This however concerns me.
“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”.”

 

[benedictgal]

Any person who has received their First Holy Communion can approach Communion and receive, that includes children. (it even includes very small children of Eastern Rite Catholics receiving a small piece of a Host). as an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion generally you should give Communion to anyone who approaches and generally acts like they know what they are doing.

This however concerns me.
“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”.”

Bro Rich, as I read this thread and several others, I sense a very sad trend here: the confusion about whether or not the faithful are receiving the whole and complete Christ. The last statement made by the pastor of the OP is rather troubling.

Redemptionis Sacramentum mentions this particular aspect when addressing the issue of Communion Under Both Kinds:

100.] So that the fullness of the sign may be made more clearly evident to the faithful in the course of the Eucharistic banquet, lay members of Christ’s faithful, too, are admitted to Communion under both kinds, in the cases set forth in the liturgical books, preceded and continually accompanied by proper catechesis regarding the dogmatic principles on this matter laid down by the Ecumenical Council of Trent.186

While it is a “fuller” sign, that does not mean that the faithful who do not receive the Precious Blood are somehow incomplete. The only one who needs to receive both species is the priest. His consumption of both species completes the sacrifice, not the faithful’s.

 

[IrishAm]

This however concerns me.
“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”.”

Yes, that concerned me, too. A great deal. I was chastised recently for not regularly taking the chalice. I didn’t realize anyone cared, but apparently some do. I feel the real problem with both species being offered is that it gives rise to people thinking there is “more” of Jesus in the reception of both species than in receiving just one or the other. That, of course, is heresy.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Bro Rich, as I read this thread and several others, I sense a very sad trend here: the confusion about whether or not the faithful are receiving the whole and complete Christ. The last statement made by the pastor of the OP is rather troubling.

Redemptionis Sacramentum mentions this particular aspect when addressing the issue of Communion Under Both Kinds:

While it is a “fuller” sign, that does not mean that the faithful who do not receive the Precious Blood are somehow incomplete. The only one who needs to receive both species is the priest. His consumption of both species completes the sacrifice, not the faithful’s.

This idea of not receiving the complete Christ by the laity, if one does not receive the Host AND the Blood of Christ is actually a heresy from the middle ages.

 

[Phemie]

It is also Catholic teaching that any baptised Catholic, even an infant, can receive Communion and Confirmation in danger of death (a former professor of mine’s child had cancer as an infant and received communion and confirmation - he was cured of his cancer and made a full recovery (as of five years ago. I don’t know his situation now).
Corry

Not in the Latin Rite. Canon Law is clear that while Confirmation may, indeed should if at all possible be conferred on infants who are in danger of dying, Communion may only be given to a child under the age of reason if he/she is able to recognize that the bread is Jesus and is able to receive reverently – infants do not meet that requirement.

 

[EasterJoy]

Not only are Puzzleannie, Benedictgal, et al correct about the children having every right to receive whatever species are being offered to the adults but…what on earth reason is there for denying the Precious Blood to children, if their parents judge that they can be trusted to receive correctly? Do we all know that vanilla extract and other flavoring extracts contain 25-40% alcohol or more? That’s right, two, three or more times alcoholic effect than the effect of the physical appearances of the Precious Blood. And yet who thinks twice about putting a half a teaspoon of vanilla in something a child will consume? Do we think they’ll drop the cup? They are as careful or more careful than the adults.

When I used to prepare children for the Sacraments, I used to tell the parents about the very small amount of alcoholic effect involved, citing the amount of alcohol in common flavorings. Parents can judge whether their child will take a very small sip, not backwash, not hide a cold so as to be able to receive, whether it is their choice that their child not receive any alcohol whatsoever, and so on. And, by the way, most of the reasons a child might be wisely prevented from receiving could apply to some adults.

We did caution the children repeatedly to obey their parents with regards to receiving the Precious Blood, explaining very clearly that Our Lord was entirely present under either species alone. We outlined the many reasons that even adults might have for receiving under one species alone, and how important it was to receive without forgetting Who it is Who has made Himself present to us. We also asked the kids that if they intended to receive the Precious Blood that they have their parents give them a sip of unconsecrated wine as a preparation, as the taste of wine is so different from other tastes they probably have experienced that the shock of it can result in a facial expression we’d just as soon not put on during Holy Communion.

Nevertheless, IMHO it is a matter of “let the little children come unto Me”…and, personally, a matter of not overglamourizing alcohol and its effects. As for our own kids, they have been allowed to receive the Precious Blood since their First Communion, but only if there is no communicable illness in our house, and nothing serious going around school. In that case, though, adults would do well to refrain, as well.

As for the common concern of infection control, the CDC has done a study and concluded that regular communicants receiving from a common cup are no more at risk of acquired infections than those who attend church regularly but do not receive or those who don’t go to church at all. Presumably, this is because regular communicants tend to have some common sense about not receiving from the common cup when they’re coming down with something.

The Church has seen fit to make the fullness of both signs of the Eucharist widely available to the faithful. Let those who wish to avail themselves of this symbolic fullness do so, and those who do not wish to do so be left alone in the knowledge that the smallest portion of either actual species gives the totality of actual fullness of His Eucharistic Presence. I fail to see why leaving each other alone on that point is so hard, but I guess all of catechesis is like that, to some degree.

 

[iamanea]

Not in the Latin Rite. Canon Law is clear that while Confirmation may, indeed should if at all possible be conferred on infants who are in danger of dying, Communion may only be given to a child under the age of reason if he/she is able to recognize that the bread is Jesus and is able to receive reverently – infants do not meet that requirement.

It is my understanding that my professor’s son received communion in the LATIN rite along with confirmation and baptism. My professor had to bring a copy of Canon law to his pastor to show that he was correct and that he did have the right to request this for his son who was born with cancer and thus was in danger of death from birth and thus also received the sacrament of the sick.

My professor was a Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic and as such, did not need any special permission or proceedure to receive this for his son since it is common practice in the Ruthenian Catholic rite. My oldest daughter was confirmed at her baptism. She was baptised in the Ruthenian Catholic rite which is where we attended church at the time.

corry

 

[Phemie]

It is my understanding that my professor’s son received communion in the LATIN rite along with confirmation and baptism. My professor had to bring a copy of Canon law to his pastor to show that he was correct and that he did have the right to request this for his son who was born with cancer and thus was in danger of death from birth and thus also received the sacrament of the sick.

My professor was a Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic and as such, did not need any special permission or proceedure to receive this for his son since it is common practice in the Ruthenian Catholic rite. My oldest daughter was confirmed at her baptism. She was baptised in the Ruthenian Catholic rite which is where we attended church at the time.

corry

It may well be that as a Byzantine Catholic he had that, perhaps under the Eastern Canon, I don’t know as I’m not well versed in the other Rites. But here are the relevant Canons:

Can. 913 §1. The administration of the Most Holy Eucharist to children requires that they have sufficient knowledge and careful preparation so that they understand the mystery of Christ according to their capacity and are able to receive the body of Christ with faith and devotion.
§2. The Most Holy Eucharist, however, can be administered to children in danger of death if they can distinguish the body of Christ from ordinary food and receive communion reverently.

Can. 914 It is primarily the duty of parents and those who take the place of parents, as well as the duty of pastors, to take care that children who have reached the use of reason are prepared properly and, after they have made sacramental confession, are refreshed with this divine food as soon as possible. It is for the pastor to exercise vigilance so that children who have not attained the use of reason or whom he judges are not sufficiently disposed do not approach holy communion.

It’s up to the priest to judge on a case by case basis. I know that a former pastor of mine gave Communion to an ill 4 year old who continually asked when he could receive Jesus. In his estimation the child met the requirements of canons 913 & 914. That child had been in church from his earliest infancy and was well catechized at even his young age. There are 10 year olds who make their First Communion who probably wouldn’t meet those requirements if we took a closer look – you can see it in the behaviour on that day.

 

[iamanea]

It may well be that as a Byzantine Catholic he had that, perhaps under the Eastern Canon, I don’t know as I’m not well versed in the other Rites. But here are the relevant Canons:

It’s up to the priest to judge on a case by case basis. I know that a former pastor of mine gave Communion to an ill 4 year old who continually asked when he could receive Jesus. In his estimation the child met the requirements of canons 913 & 914. That child had been in church from his earliest infancy and was well catechized at even his young age. There are 10 year olds who make their First Communion who probably wouldn’t meet those requirements if we took a closer look – you can see it in the behaviour on that day.

Thanks for the quotes from canon law. It may be that, as you suggested, this was done by the Latin priest because of the fact my professor was a Byzantine Catholic and he could not go to his own church (none in the area). It really was an emergency as the doctors said the boy would die. My professor credits the sacraments for saving his son’s life. At the time I took this class the boy was 2 1/2 and still in remission.

Corry