Children recieving from the cup

[Br.Rich_SFO]

palmas85:

Then according to Canon 912 every missalette, missal and catechism in existance must be wrong, because they all clearly state that only Catholics are to receive communion and it cannot be extended to those outside of the faith.

Perhaps the prohibited by law statement refers to being in communion with the Catholic Church?

That is correct, meaning specifically prohibited by Canon Law. An example would be someone who is Excommunicated. The statement in the missalette is there to help them understand that they should not get up and go to receive Holy Communion. If a protestant who is visiting Mass gets up and goes to Holy Communion we who may be distributing Communion cannot refuse.

Many EMHC’s flip out when an adult approaches for Communion with a 2 or 3 year old child and indicates that the child is to receive. Most Eastern Catholic families if they are attending a Latin parish will introduce themselves before Mass. But not always. Eastern children receive from the time of their Baptism both the Body and Blood of Christ each Sunday.

 

[MusicMan]

Hey guys, it looks like you’re bickering over things to make them irrelevant to the discussion. Can the Bishop or Pastor establish a policy that sets an age restriction on the reception of the Precious Blood or not?

 

[palmas85]

Br. Rich SFO:

Perhaps the prohibited by law statement refers to being in communion with the Catholic Church?

That is correct, meaning specifically prohibited by Canon Law. An example would be someone who is Excommunicated. The statement in the missalette is there to help them understand that they should not get up and go to receive Holy Communion. If a protestant who is visiting Mass gets up and goes to Holy Communion we who may be distributing Communion cannot refuse.

Many EMHC’s flip out when an adult approaches for Communion with a 2 or 3 year old child and indicates that the child is to receive. Most Eastern Catholic families if they are attending a Latin parish will introduce themselves before Mass. But not always. Eastern children receive from the time of their Baptism both the Body and Blood of Christ each Sunday.

If a Protestant comes up to receive, he cannot be refused?

 

[chnchris]

Br. Rich SFO:

I would guess those Confirmed 9 to 12 year olds from other diocese would need to bring a note from their pastor stating that they were confirmed? Yes some diocese do Confirm in 5th and 6th grade. Do they present it to thje EMHC during Holy Communion or to the priest before Mass?

 As i said previously, some dioceses confirm at
 same age of 1st Eucharist, ie, 7 years old!

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

palmas85:

If a Protestant comes up to receive, he cannot be refused?

That is correct. If a Protestant approaches in public at Mass, they cannot be refused.

 

[BlestOne]

Hmmm, Never thought of this as an issue. I assume that if a child is old enough for First Eucharist, then they are old enough for the precious blood. Each of my kids has on occasion partaken of this species, and it wasn’t denied to them or any other child in our parish. I don’t think that the alcoholic content should be an issue since there isn’t enough in the chalice to “get drunk” on. This seems to be such a shame that this child was denied. I think I would approach the pastor if this happened in my parish. The thing in this post that alarms me more than this is what Br Rich said:

That is correct. If a Protestant approaches in public at Mass, they cannot be refused.
and:
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.

This alarms me!!!

 

[palmas85]

Br. Rich SFO:

That is correct. If a Protestant approaches in public at Mass, they cannot be refused.

There certainly appears to be a discrepency then, from the Code of canon Law:

Can. 844 §1 Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments only to catholic members of Christ’s faithful, who equally may lawfully receive them only from catholic ministers, except as provided in §§2, 3 and 4 of this canon and in can. 861 §2.

§
§3 Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick to members of the eastern Churches not in full communion with the catholic Church, if they spontaneously ask for them and are properly disposed. The same applies to members of other Churches which the Apostolic See judges to be in the same position as the aforesaid eastern Churches so far as the sacraments are concerned.

§4 If there is a danger of death or if, in the judgement of the diocesan Bishop or of the Episcopal Conference, there is some other grave and pressing need, catholic ministers may lawfully administer these same sacraments to other christians not in full communion with the catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who spontaneously ask for them, provided that they demonstrate the catholic faith in respect of these sacraments and are properly disposed.

From the UCCSB:
As Catholics, we believe that the celebration of the Eucharist is a sign of our oneness in faith, life and worship.** Members of churches with whom we are not yet fully united are therefore not ordinarily invited to participate in Holy Communion. The Catechism of the Catholic Church reflects on this teaching.**

**Ecclesial communities derived from the Reformation and separated from the Catholic Church, "have not preserved the proper reality of the Eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Holy Orders." It is for this reason that Eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not possible for the Catholic Church.**

These look pretty clear to me, am I missing something?

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

palmas85:

There certainly appears to be a discrepency then, from the Code of canon Law:

Can. 844 §1 Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments only to catholic members of Christ’s faithful, who equally may lawfully receive them only from catholic ministers, except as provided in §§2, 3 and 4 of this canon and in can. 861 §2.

§
§3 Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick to members of the eastern Churches not in full communion with the catholic Church, if they spontaneously ask for them and are properly disposed. The same applies to members of other Churches which the Apostolic See judges to be in the same position as the aforesaid eastern Churches so far as the sacraments are concerned.

§4 If there is a danger of death or if, in the judgement of the diocesan Bishop or of the Episcopal Conference, there is some other grave and pressing need, catholic ministers may lawfully administer these same sacraments to other christians not in full communion with the catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who spontaneously ask for them, provided that they demonstrate the catholic faith in respect of these sacraments and are properly disposed.

From the UCCSB:
As Catholics, we believe that the celebration of the Eucharist is a sign of our oneness in faith, life and worship.** Members of churches with whom we are not yet fully united are therefore not ordinarily invited to participate in Holy Communion. The Catechism of the Catholic Church reflects on this teaching.**

Ecclesial communities derived from the Reformation and separated from the Catholic Church, “have not preserved the proper reality of the Eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Holy Orders.” It is for this reason that Eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not possible for the Catholic Church.

These look pretty clear to me, am I missing something?

Read them again with specific attention to:

Can. 844 §4 "who spontaneously ask for them, provided that they demonstrate the catholic faith in respect of these sacraments and are properly disposed."

UCCSB: "not ordinarily invited"

"Eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not possible for the Catholic Church."

Communities not individual Christians

 

[chnchris]

Br. Rich SFO:

That is correct. If a Protestant approaches in public at Mass, they cannot be refused.

And they do it all the time.

 

[a_pilgrim]

muledog:

…Receiving under both Species is just a way that one may appreciate the symbolism more fully…

Just a cautionary note…

I thnk that we, as Catholic faithful, need to be extremely careful to avoid using any form of the word symbol when discussing the Real Presence. Too many people today - sadly, many Catholics included - look upon the Blessed Sacrament as a mere symbolic gesture… let’s be careful not to perpetuate this false line of thinking by employing language that reinforces it.

Muledog, it’s obvious from the rest of your post that your own belief in the Real Presence is unquestionable. Please forgive my being “nit-picky” with your wording, but I believe we all can be a bit more careful with our word choices when discussing something as sacred and profound as the actual physical presence of Our Lord in our midst.

 

[a_pilgrim]

chnchris:

…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)…

To take chnchris’ comment one step further, in the Eastern Catholic Churches, it is normal procedure to administer these three Sacraments of Initiation all at the same time to infants, children well in advance of any arbitrary “age of reason.” As such, it is not at all unusual to see toddlers and even babes in arms receiving the Blessed Sacrament along with their parents on a regular basis during Sunday Divine Liturgies - after all, as fully-initiated members of the Catholic Church, these infants and toddlers are just as entitled (and encouraged!) to partake of Our Lord as their older counterparts.

This poses a question I have for EMHCs in the Latin Church…

How were you trained to handle the occasion of a visiting Eastern Catholic family who may approach you desiring that their infant/toddler receive the Blessed Sacrament during Communion at your church?

Thanks in advance, EMHCs, for your response!

 

[palmas85]

Br. Rich SFO:

Read them again with specific attention to:

Can. 844 §4 "who spontaneously ask for them, provided that they demonstrate the catholic faith in respect of these sacraments and are properly disposed."

UCCSB: “not ordinarily invited”

"Eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not possible for the Catholic Church."

Communities not individual Christians

How does a Protestant demonstrate the Catholic faith and respect for the sacraments and be properly disposed when they don’t even believe the sacraments to be valid? Every Protestant denomination, with the exception of the Lutherans, say the eucharist is merely a symbol and nothing more. How can you say this idea is compatable with eucharistice reception and our belief in what the eucharist really is??

Communities are made up of individuals Brother. I hate to say this, but I think you or the Bishops who wrote the letter you say authroizes this practice are operating under a misconception, perhaps born of a misguided sense of ecumenism.

Coukld you please provide a copy or link to the document that allows and in fact requires this practice?

 

[MusicMan]

The rules tell those who should not receive that they can’t, but the rules don’t authorize the Communion Distributors to enforce who can and cannot receive. The responsibility for eligibility for reception is put on the shoulders of those considering receiving, and spares the Distributors from this responsibility.

The situation the OP brought to our attention is a prime example of how messy this can be.

If you travel, how would you feel if a EMHC denied you the Eucharist because they didn’t think you were Catholic because they’d never seen you in their parish before?

What if you had committed a sin, went to confession and repented, but the EMHC knew you had committed the sin and tried to deny you Communion, even though you were properly disposed to receive? How would you feel? How would you feel if you were the EMHC in this situation? How would you feel about denying someone Communion because you thought they had sinner? How would you feel if you turned out to be WRONG?

This is why the authority to deny someone is reserved to the priest and bishop and is so hard to actually obtain.

An old choir member of mine, who was a well-respected DRE and had advanced degrees in Catholic theology, once put it this way: Not everyone can come to the table, but all those who do are welcome to receive.

Back to the original topic… I still intepret the norms for reception of both species to grant the bishop the authority to set a minimum age for reception of the chalice in his Dioceses. I am still waiting for Brother Rich and those of you who don’t agree with my interpretation to prove me wrong. Honestly, I’d like to be, but it hasn’t yet been proven.

 

[SMHW]

MusicMan:

The rules tell those who should not receive that they can’t, but the rules don’t authorize the Communion Distributors to enforce who can and cannot receive. The responsibility for eligibility for reception is put on the shoulders of those considering receiving, and spares the Distributors from this responsibility.
.
.
.
Back to the original topic… I still intepret the norms for reception of both species to grant the bishop the authority to set a minimum age for reception of the chalice in his Dioceses. I am still waiting for Brother Rich and those of you who don’t agree with my interpretation to prove me wrong. Honestly, I’d like to be, but it hasn’t yet been proven.

I still say that even if the bishop has the authority to set a minimum age you run into the same problem as you do with Protestants or those in a state of sin. The burden of enforcement of age should not be placed on EMHCs. It may be obvious that a baby or toddler is below a certain age. But if a child is old enough to come forward and ask I don’t see how an EMHC could deny the Cup to that child. An EMHC can’t be certain how old any given person may be.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

palmas85:

How does a Protestant demonstrate the Catholic faith and respect for the sacraments and be properly disposed when they don’t even believe the sacraments to be valid? Every Protestant denomination, with the exception of the Lutherans, say the eucharist is merely a symbol and nothing more. How can you say this idea is compatable with eucharistice reception and our belief in what the eucharist really is??

Communities are made up of individuals Brother. I hate to say this, but I think you or the Bishops who wrote the letter you say authroizes this practice are operating under a misconception, perhaps born of a misguided sense of ecumenism.

Coukld you please provide a copy or link to the document that allows and in fact requires this practice?

I spoke with someone last night after searching for the document. They said they would give me a copy of it after Mass Sunday.

The Church always views Individual Christians differently then it does separated Christian Communities. There are many Protestants who believe that the Catholic Eucharist is the True Presence of Christ. They have difficulty entering full communion with the Catholic Church because of moral issues, not doctrinal issues, especially the Doctrine of the Eucharist. That is why many Protestants sneek into Catholic Churches to receive the Eucharist specifically because they know exactly what it is. Should they ? NO, but they do.

 

[palmas85]

Br. Rich SFO:

I spoke with someone last night after searching for the document. They said they would give me a copy of it after Mass Sunday.

The Church always views Individual Christians differently then it does separated Christian Communities. There are many Protestants who believe that the Catholic Eucharist is the True Presence of Christ. They have difficulty entering full communion with the Catholic Church because of moral issues, not doctrinal issues, especially the Doctrine of the Eucharist. That is why many Protestants sneek into Catholic Churches to receive the Eucharist specifically because they know exactly what it is. Should they ? NO, but they do.

I know this is getting a long way off the thread topic, but what moral issues? Most Protestants that I know object to the Catholic Church solely on doctrinal issues, mainly Papal Infallibility or the office of the Pope itself, the Immaculate Conception, the Mass itself as well as the Real Presence, indulgences, the doctrine of Purgatory and salvation by faith alone. I have many friends who are protestants and I spend a lot of time dealing with protestant apologetics. I have never met any or read of any who objected to the Catholic Church on a moral issue. Of course that excludes the ones who believe fully that the Roman Church is the whore of Babylon and the Pope the Anti Christ.

 

[MusicMan]

SMHW:

I still say that even if the bishop has the authority to set a minimum age you run into the same problem as you do with Protestants or those in a state of sin. The burden of enforcement of age should not be placed on EMHCs. It may be obvious that a baby or toddler is below a certain age. But if a child is old enough to come forward and ask I don’t see how an EMHC could deny the Cup to that child. An EMHC can’t be certain how old any given person may be.

I agree with you completely. I’m only stating that the way the documents of the Church read, it is my interpretation that the Bishop does have the power to legislate these… even if the cause is due to vague wording in the documents. It may not be right, but it may very well be legal.

I think this situation is the same as any other person coming forward… the EMHC does not have the right or responsibility to determine the whether or not the communicant is able to receive or not. Any Bishop who were to exercise the authority I interpret him to have to establish an age minimum for the chalice would be putting the EMHC in the same situation that the rest of the documents don’t want the EMHC in.

I am hoping that Br. Rich’s research will provide evidence that my interpretation of the laws are wrong, and that the OP can share this evidence with the pastor of the church in question.

(Now when was the last time someone hoped that another poster would prove them wrong, and was actually being sincere in that challenge? )

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

MusicMan:

I agree with you completely. I’m only stating that the way the documents of the Church read, it is my interpretation that the Bishop does have the power to legislate these… even if the cause is due to vague wording in the documents. It may not be right, but it may very well be legal.

I think this situation is the same as any other person coming forward… the EMHC does not have the right or responsibility to determine the whether or not the communicant is able to receive or not. Any Bishop who were to exercise the authority I interpret him to have to establish an age minimum for the chalice would be putting the EMHC in the same situation that the rest of the documents don’t want the EMHC in.

I am hoping that Br. Rich’s research will provide evidence that my interpretation of the laws are wrong, and that the OP can share this evidence with the pastor of the church in question.

(Now when was the last time someone hoped that another poster would prove them wrong, and was actually being sincere in that challenge? )

This discussion has been good and it may be boiling down to interpretation. Which I am not qualified to speak for the Church on. Maybe a canonist can be consulted as to how to interpret the extent of the Bishops authority in establishing if the Blood of Christ will be offered for Holy Communion and if they may place any restrictions of age on who may or may not receive.

 

[MusicMan]

Someone around here probably SHOULD speak with a Canonist, just for our own reference. I am quite content, however, to hear the evidence you are getting over the weekend.

Ultimately, while I think the Bishop has the authority to set an age restriction, it is clear that the parish pastor does not. It is also clear that the Church would prefer to see children be encouraged to receive from the chalice when it is offered. Just because a Bishop can do something, doesn’t mean it should be done.

In view of this, I am eagerly awaiting the day when I’m on vacation somewhere and an EMHC denies me Communion because they’ve never seen me at the parish before and how would they know that I’m a Catholic properly disposed to receive the Sacrament. That day is coming, if it hasn’t happened out there already.

 

[Pug]

a pilgrim:

How were you trained to handle the occasion of a visiting Eastern Catholic family who may approach you desiring that their infant/toddler receive the Blessed Sacrament during Communion at your church?

I was trained, but what you ask was not part of the training. Most of the time it seems that I am the only Catholic I know (in the real world, not internet) who is aware of the Eastern Catholics (obviously this means I don’t know any Eastern Catholics in real life as well ).