Children recieving from the cup

[euphoniac]

At our church we are often afforded the option of recieving the Blessed Sacrament under both species. While at mass one sunday the EMHC who was distributing communion from the chalice would not allow a child to recieve the Blessed sacrament in the form of wine. She kindly said to the child, “I’m sorry I can’t let you have this,” to which the child responded, “Yes you can.” Unfortunately, the EMHC did not give in and would not allow the child to recieve. I was a bit surprised by this. After some inquiry I found out that it is the policy of our parish not to allow children to recieve from the chalice until they have recieved confirmation. I find this very disturbing and was wondering if anyone had heard of this before. As far as I know anyone who can recieve communion can recieve under either or both species. While I don’t have children of my own I find it very disturbing that they could allow what seems to me to be such an arbitrary denial of the eucharist to someone who is able to recieve. I really want to take this up with the pastor, but I wanted to get all my facts straight first… any help?

 

[palmas85]

euphoniac:

At our church we are often afforded the option of recieving the Blessed Sacrament under both species. While at mass one sunday the EMHC who was distributing communion from the chalice would not allow a child to recieve the Blessed sacrament in the form of wine. She kindly said to the child, “I’m sorry I can’t let you have this,” to which the child responded, “Yes you can.” Unfortunately, the EMHC did not give in and would not allow the child to recieve. I was a bit surprised by this. After some inquiry I found out that it is the policy of our parish not to allow children to recieve from the chalice until they have recieved confirmation. I find this very disturbing and was wondering if anyone had heard of this before. As far as I know anyone who can recieve communion can recieve under either or both species. While I don’t have children of my own I find it very disturbing that they could allow what seems to me to be such an arbitrary denial of the eucharist to someone who is able to recieve. I really want to take this up with the pastor, but I wanted to get all my facts straight first… any help?

How old was the child? Maybe they were afraid he or she would spill it or spit it out due to taste or something. I’ve actually seen a young child take a sip and spit it out, which her mother thought was pretty funny. She laughed a lot about it. Maybe she was just nervous. … I don’t know. I do know that receiving from the cup is not mandatory and that the church never has to allow it. .It is completely optional. Many churches never have it due to numerous problems with distribution. It does seem reasonable that they could have a policy regulating who could receive from the cup in order to avoid spillage, sacrilige etc.

I would be more concerned with why the child felt he or she had the right to tell the minister what they could and could not do. I somehow doubt that the child is really well versed in the duties and obligations of an Extraordinary Minister.

One of the reasons they did away with receiving from the cup in the first place was due to exclusivity and abuse. Might have been a good policy, who knows.

 

[muledog]

I’m not sure I see this as a “big deal”, and I doubt that the situation is “arbitrary.” As I’m sure you are aware, anyone who receives Holy Communion under one Species receives Jesus completely - Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. Receiving under both Species is just a way that one may appreciate the symbolism more fully.

You might wish to speak with your pastor about this issue. Maybe there had been problems with several youngsters spilling the Sacred Blood, or that many children were unable to “discern the Body and Blood” at such a young age when Communion is given under both Kinds.

 

[euphoniac]

In speaking with another extraordinary minister at our parish it seemed to me that the idea of giving wine to children was the problem; that children recieving wine was somehow unacceptable. I have never seen this particular child in church other than this one day. I’m assuming that the child was some kind of visitor, and was probably used to recieving under both species at his home parish. He appeared to me to be about 11 or 12 years old.

As for spitting it out, I would assume that proper catachisis should prevent this sort of thing, and if something of this nature occured the parent and child should be spoken with after Mass about it.

As far as I know the General instruction says, “It is most desirable that the faithful… partake of the chalice, so that even by means of the signs Communion will stand out more clearly as a participation in the sacrifice actually being celebrated.”

It doesn’t say that the faithful who are of a certain age, nor does it say the faithful who have recieved the sacrament of Confirmation.

“Receiving under both Species is just a way that one may appreciate the symbolism more fully.” So should this opportunity for full appreciation of the symbol only be allowed to some members of the church? The reason I say, “Arbitrary” is that age is not a good determinant of someone’s ability to appreciate the sacrament. I just feel that if the church is going to offer Communion under both species, it should be offered to all, regardless of who they are. I simply want to know if anyone knows of any actual document that supports the church limiting who can recieve from the cup.

Also, the child saying, “yes, you can” was not in an obstinant way, and did not seem to be the child trying to tell the minister what she could and couldn’t do. The child seemed to have an earnest desire to appreciate fully Communion with Jesus Christ and was denied it.

 

[palmas85]

euphoniac:

In speaking with another extraordinary minister at our parish it seemed to me that the idea of giving wine to children was the problem; that children recieving wine was somehow unacceptable. I have never seen this particular child in church other than this one day. I’m assuming that the child was some kind of visitor, and was probably used to recieving under both species at his home parish. He appeared to me to be about 11 or 12 years old.

As for spitting it out, I would assume that proper catachisis should prevent this sort of thing, and if something of this nature occured the parent and child should be spoken with after Mass about it.

As far as I know the General instruction says, “It is most desirable that the faithful… partake of the chalice, so that even by means of the signs Communion will stand out more clearly as a participation in the sacrifice actually being celebrated.”

It doesn’t say that the faithful who are of a certain age, nor does it say the faithful who have recieved the sacrament of Confirmation.

“Receiving under both Species is just a way that one may appreciate the symbolism more fully.” So should this opportunity for full appreciation of the symbol only be allowed to some members of the church? The reason I say, “Arbitrary” is that age is not a good determinant of someone’s ability to appreciate the sacrament. I just feel that if the church is going to offer Communion under both species, it should be offered to all, regardless of who they are. I simply want to know if anyone knows of any actual document that supports the churches limiting who can recieve from the cup.

Also, the child saying, “yes, you can” was not in an obstinant way, and did not seem to be the child trying to tell the minister what she could and couldn’t do. The child seemed to have an earnest desire to participate fully in Communion with Jesus Christ and was denied it.

Well maybe. As I said receiving ftrom the cup is optional anyway. A church doesn’t have to extend it at all. Mine doesn’t and no one seems to feel deprived in any way. I still think the main question is why he would question why the Minister turned her down. As far as catechisis goes, yeah it does help, but children are children. I was more devout than most of my peers and I really didn’t grasp exactly what was going on until I was in my teens. I knew it was special but I really didn’t grasp the whole idea until later.

The church has always used arbitrary age as a determinant for things. As I recall seven was used for the age of conscience, although I don’t know if they still do.

The child wasn’t denied anything, he received Holy Communion did he not? The fact that he didn’t receive from the cup also in no way negated or lessened the graces he received.

I think that given the attitude that many people have towards the cup it probably was a good idea that the church stopped the practice years ago. Far too many people seem to feel that it is required or that it is an entitlement of some sort.

 

[puzzleannie]

palmas85:

Well maybe. As I said receiving ftrom the cup is optional anyway. The church has always used arbitrary age as a determinant for things. As I recall seven was used for the age of conscience, although I don’t know if they still do.

The child wasn’t denied anything, he received Holy Communion did he not? The fact that he didn’t receive from the cup also in no way negated or lessened the graces he received.

I think that given the attitude that many people have towards the cup it probably was a good idea that the church stopped the practice years ago. Far too many people seem to feel that it is required or that it is an entitlement of some sort.

It is an entitlement, the GIRM clearly specifies that the faithful are to be offered both the Body and Blood of the Lord, and that includes all the faithful who have been admitted to first holy communion. “The Church” determines the age for communion. An EMCH is not “the Church” neither is a pastor who is arbitrarily barring otherwise properly disposed persons from the sacrament as the Church intended. This is indeed an abuse and must be brought to the intention of the Bishop. If the pastor and EMHC’s are so poorly instructed as to the nature of the Precious Blood that they somehow think it is wine and therefore inappropriate for children they need to go back to Remedial CCD.

 

[maryjk]

euphoniac:

Also, the child saying, “yes, you can” was not in an obstinant way, and did not seem to be the child trying to tell the minister what she could and couldn’t do. The child seemed to have an earnest desire to appreciate fully Communion with Jesus Christ and was denied it.

I am sure the “yes, you can” was what my son sometimes has to indicate when we visit a Church. The Priest will not know if the child has received before. I know a couple of times, the Priest will look at me behind my son, I will nod, and my son will receive. The “yes, you can” may have been a “yes, you can, I have received before.”

palmas85:

The child wasn’t denied anything, he received Holy Communion did he not? The fact that he didn’t receive from the cup also in no way negated or lessened the graces he received.

The child was denied Christ. If you walked up to receive and the EMHC, said “sorry, I can’t give this to you.” How would you feel? If this child is 11 or 12, they may have been receiving for five years. Now suddenly, someone says no.

 

[puzzleannie]

the child was denied what was offered to every other communicant in the Church. It is one thing if at some Masses the cup is simply not available to the faithful for whatever reason, but to offer it to some and not others is a clear abuse and arbitrary one at that. We are not talking about celiac disease or any other situation. There is no Church teaching that justifies the policy in this parish.

 

[Hegesippus]

It is kind of ironic that in the Early Church only the chalice was offered to children much younger than this.

 

[Rebecca_New]

I have never seen any problem with a child recieving from the cup. The parent should be with the child if they just made their communion or are around that age.

 

[palmas85]

puzzleannie:

It is an entitlement, the GIRM clearly specifies that the faithful are to be offered both the Body and Blood of the Lord, and that includes all the faithful who have been admitted to first holy communion. “The Church” determines the age for communion. An EMCH is not “the Church” neither is a pastor who is arbitrarily barring otherwise properly disposed persons from the sacrament as the Church intended. This is indeed an abuse and must be brought to the intention of the Bishop. If the pastor and EMHC’s are so poorly instructed as to the nature of the Precious Blood that they somehow think it is wine and therefore inappropriate for children they need to go back to Remedial CCD.

Directly from the GIRM:

1. Moved by the same desire and pastoral concern, the Second Vatican Council was able to give renewed consideration to what was established by Trent on Communion under both kinds. And indeed, since no one today calls into doubt in any way the doctrinal principles on the complete efficacy of eucharistic Communion under the species of bread alone, the Council thus gave permission for the reception of Communion under both kinds on some occasions, because this clearer form of the sacramental sign offers a particular opportunity of deepening the understanding of the mystery in which the faithful take part.21

Note the words on some occasions.

Directly from the GIRM:

he Diocesan Bishop may establish norms for Communion under both kinds for his own diocese, which are also to be observed in churches of religious and at celebrations with small groups. **The Diocesan Bishop is also given the faculty to permit Communion under both kinds whenever it may seem appropriate to the priest to whom, as its own shepherd, a community has been entrusted, provided that the faithful have been well instructed and there is no danger of profanation of the Sacrament or of the rite’s becoming difficult because of the large number of participants or some other reason.
**

Note that it says the Bishops may establish norms. Note the requirement that the faithful be well instructed with no danger of profanation.

Please show me where it says that it is an entitlement to receive under both species. I looked, I couldn’t find it.

 

[chnchris]

palmas85:

Directly from the GIRM:
14. Moved by the same desire and pastoral concern, the Second Vatican Council was able to give renewed consideration to what was established by Trent on Communion under both kinds. And indeed, since no one today calls into doubt in any way the doctrinal principles on the complete efficacy of eucharistic Communion under the species of bread alone, the Council thus gave permission for the reception of Communion under both kinds on some occasions, because this clearer form of the sacramental sign offers a particular opportunity of deepening the understanding of the mystery in which the faithful take part.21
Note the words on some occasions.

Directly from the GIRM:
he Diocesan Bishop may establish norms for Communion under both kinds for his own diocese, which are also to be observed in churches of religious and at celebrations with small groups. The Diocesan Bishop is also given the faculty to permit Communion under both kinds whenever it may seem appropriate to the priest to whom, as its own shepherd, a community has been entrusted, provided that the faithful have been well instructed and there is no danger of profanation of the Sacrament or of the rite’s becoming difficult because of the large number of participants or some other reason.
Note that it says the Bishops may establish norms. Note the requirement that the faithful be well instructed with no danger of profanation. Please show me where it says that it is an entitlement to receive under both species. I looked, I couldn’t find it.

 These quotes from GIRM confirm it's up to the
 Bishop to allow receiving under both species;

** if it is allowed to offer Holy Communion under
bread and wine,** **then it is offered to all. **The only
requirements are that he who receives has been
properly prepared (made 1st penance & Eucharist)
and are in a state of grace.

 Thus, even a child who meets these requirements
 may, if they choose (not the EEM or pastor) take
 from the Cup as well. Incidentally, it is worth noting
 that a child may be baptized, confirmed, and have
 1st Communion all at the same time, at the age of
 reason (usually around 7 or grade 2).

 Isn't it sad that a child of God may be refused the
 cup, but an avowed pro-abortion politician receives
 Communion with narry an objection!

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

euphoniac:

At our church we are often afforded the option of recieving the Blessed Sacrament under both species. While at mass one sunday the EMHC who was distributing communion from the chalice would not allow a child to recieve the Blessed sacrament in the form of wine. She kindly said to the child, “I’m sorry I can’t let you have this,” to which the child responded, “Yes you can.” Unfortunately, the EMHC did not give in and would not allow the child to recieve. I was a bit surprised by this. After some inquiry I found out that it is the policy of our parish not to allow children to recieve from the chalice until they have recieved confirmation. I find this very disturbing and was wondering if anyone had heard of this before. As far as I know anyone who can recieve communion can recieve under either or both species. While I don’t have children of my own I find it very disturbing that they could allow what seems to me to be such an arbitrary denial of the eucharist to someone who is able to recieve. I really want to take this up with the pastor, but I wanted to get all my facts straight first… any help?

It is improper. If one has received First Holy Communion they have the option of receiving under either form. Speak with the pastor or the diocese if necessary. Canon Law provides that the Sacraments are not denied any of the faithful when presenting themselves properly prepared and with the right dispostitions.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

palmas85:

Well maybe. As I said receiving ftrom the cup is optional anyway. A church doesn’t have to extend it at all. Mine doesn’t and no one seems to feel deprived in any way. I still think the main question is why he would question why the Minister turned her down. As far as catechisis goes, yeah it does help, but children are children. I was more devout than most of my peers and I really didn’t grasp exactly what was going on until I was in my teens. I knew it was special but I really didn’t grasp the whole idea until later.

The church has always used arbitrary age as a determinant for things. As I recall seven was used for the age of conscience, although I don’t know if they still do.

The child wasn’t denied anything, he received Holy Communion did he not? The fact that he didn’t receive from the cup also in no way negated or lessened the graces he received.

I think that given the attitude that many people have towards the cup it probably was a good idea that the church stopped the practice years ago. Far too many people seem to feel that it is required or that it is an entitlement of some sort.

You are correct that the Chalice is optional. However if it is offered, it must offered to all who have received First Holy Communion.

 

[palmas85]

Br. Rich SFO:

You are correct that the Chalice is optional. However if it is offered, it must offered to all who have received First Holy Communion.

My point wasn’t that the child should have been denied, not at all. But many people, some on this forum, believe that the chalice is a requirement, a necessity. that everyone is entitled to it, and that it must be made available to all. I’ve seen visitors at my Novus Ordo Parish get very upset that the chalice is not available there. Someone replied on this forum saying that the GIRM says it is an entitlement. This is the main reason I think restoring the Chalice to the Laity, was probably a mistake. If people believe that they have to receive from the chalice, then they don’t understand that the body and blood are fully present under both or either species. And if they think they are entitled to receive it whenever they want it, they don’t understand that it is the decision of the appropriate Bishop. In any event, it appears that many, if not most of the laity, are not properly catechized and of proper formation, as specified in the GIRM for reception.

Now I have no idea what level of control the Bishops can place on the distribution of Holy Communion. I would have to assume that is a very serious issue with them. It would make sense to me, that given the gravity of the situation, it would make sense to err on the side of caution. The child was not deprived of Holy Communion, was not deprived of any graces, and I doubt he was psychologically damaged by the refusal.

Question: could you point me to where it says that if offered, it must be offered to all. From reading the GIRM it looked like that decision was within the discretion of the local Bishop.

 

[puzzleannie]

palmas85:

My point wasn’t that the child should have been denied, not at all. But many people, some on this forum, believe that the chalice is a requirement, a necessity. that everyone is entitled to it, and that it must be made available to all. I’ve seen visitors at my Novus Ordo Parish get very upset that the chalice is not available there…

you can argue this on one of the dozens of threads on this topic. this thread is about a specific instance and the validity of offering the chalice to some communicants and denying to others during the same Mass for a reason not specified in the GIRM or any other document. It is about an EMHC making an ad hoc decision on her own authority about administering to a particular communicant. let us stay on topic.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

palmas85:

My point wasn’t that the child should have been denied, not at all. But many people, some on this forum, believe that the chalice is a requirement, a necessity. that everyone is entitled to it, and that it must be made available to all. I’ve seen visitors at my Novus Ordo Parish get very upset that the chalice is not available there. Someone replied on this forum saying that the GIRM says it is an entitlement. This is the main reason I think restoring the Chalice to the Laity, was probably a mistake. If people believe that they have to receive from the chalice, then they don’t understand that the body and blood are fully present under both or either species. And if they think they are entitled to receive it whenever they want it, they don’t understand that it is the decision of the appropriate Bishop. In any event, it appears that many, if not most of the laity, are not properly catechized and of proper formation, as specified in the GIRM for reception.

Now I have no idea what level of control the Bishops can place on the distribution of Holy Communion. I would have to assume that is a very serious issue with them. It would make sense to me, that given the gravity of the situation, it would make sense to err on the side of caution. The child was not deprived of Holy Communion, was not deprived of any graces, and I doubt he was psychologically damaged by the refusal.

Question: could you point me to where it says that if offered, it must be offered to all. From reading the GIRM it looked like that decision was within the discretion of the local Bishop.

The idea that the Chalice is required for a complete Communion (except for the priest) is itself a heresy that the Church dealt with over the course of history. It is at least part of the reason the Chalice was removed from the laity at one point. The problem with the GIRM is that most are quoting from the US translation, which applies only in the US. Which at the present time gives Bishops the option of offering the Chalice to the laity or not in their diocese.

“Now I have no idea what level of control the Bishops can place on the distribution of Holy Communion.”

The Bishop has absolute control over all liturgy celebrated in his diocese. When one has received First Holy Communion then they are “entitled” by Canon Law to receive the Sacrament in either form that is offered. It is by their choice. Rome as well as the Bishops have said that no one is to be refused Holy Communion in public who presents themselves to a minister during Holy Communion. With certain clear exceptions and then only under the specific authority of the pastor. Like a person who has been publicly excommunicated, a public sinner, etc.
An EMHC does not have the authority to refuse a communicant, period.

If a person known to me to be living with their third wife and I know has not received any decrees of nullity because they told me so. Approaches Holy Communion at Mass this morning I cannot refuse them Holy Communion. Even if the pastor has said very publicly that people who have remarried should not approach Holy Communion. I must give them Holy Communion and then make it known to the pastor that they received. It is up to him to speak with them individually.

 

[Seatuck]

That is horrible. What if that child had Celiac Disease?

 

[palmas85]

puzzleannie:

you can argue this on one of the dozens of threads on this topic. this thread is about a specific instance and the validity of offering the chalice to some communicants and denying to others during the same Mass for a reason not specified in the GIRM or any other document. It is about an EMHC making an ad hoc decision on her own authority about administering to a particular communicant. let us stay on topic.

My point was that in that diocese the Bishop may have made the determination not to offer the chalice to children under a certain age, and he may have delegated that authority to the parish level and the pastor may have told the Extraordinary Ministers no chalice to the children. If the Bishop has the authority to regulate the distribution of Holy Communion, which the does, it would seem that he could have that option. That is of course unless there is a provision in Canon Law that specifically regulates that.

I looked in the Code of Canon Law and and the GIRM, and saw nothing that said if the chalice was offered to one it had to be offered to all.

Could it have been that far from a ministers ad hoc decision, he was acting in accordance with the directive of the local Bishop? After all, the child was not denied Holy Communion, he received Holy Communion. If the child had been denied both forms of communion, I would have no problem at all, the minister would be definitely wrong. But the child did in fact receive, he was not deprived of any graces from the sacrament.

As I asked is there is a povision in Canon Law that specifies that all who request the chalice must be given it and can the Bishop regulate that aspect of it?

I’m not trying to argue. I just want clarity on this issue due to the apparent misunderstanding that surrounds it in the minds of many.

 

[MusicMan]

It appears that the GIRM gives the Bishop the authority to establish norms for the reception of the Eucharist under both species. Therefore, the Bishop would be empowered to establish an age requirement for reception of the Cup for his diocese. However, the GIRM doesn’t appear to give parish pastors the authority to do that, but one could conclude that the Bishop could set norms that would specifically permit the parish pastors to set age limits for their parishes. This would only be lawful, though, if the Bishop specifically said so in the established norms for the diocese.