first communion

[Brendan]

frommi:

Canonically speaking (I think), provided the first communicant is properly disposed, the pastor, or any extraordinary minister cannot deny the sacraments to the child.

So, theoretically, the child approaches and he/she must be allowed to receive. Provided of course the child isn’t running for congress and is in support of abortion rights, which seems like a longshot.

Canonically speaking, it is the pastor’s decision on if a first communicant is properly disposed, so the pastor could refuse a first communicant.

But generally, you are correct.

Can. 914 It is primarily the duty of parents and of those who take their place, as it is the duty of the parish priest, to ensure that children who have reached the use of reason are properly prepared and, having made their sacramental confession, are nourished by this divine food as soon as possible. It is also the duty of the parish priest to see that children who have not reached the use of reason, or whom he has judged to be insufficiently disposed, do not come to holy communion.

 

[Brendan]

We’ll be celebrating our son’s First Communion at the parish of a family friend (who is a ‘transitional’ deacon)

They distrubute Communion Intincted ( the priest or deacon dips the Host in the Precious Blood)

So he will recieve both species.

 

[Angel_Bradford]

In my parish, the children receive under both species. They process in with the priest and altar servers; the first 3 or 4 pews are reserved for them so they are first in the Communion line.

 

[BlestOne]

I hate to be the party pooper here but i have a question…

How does the child feel about receiving with the family and not the group, but also receiving under both species?

Don’t get me wrong…I do believe that the parents are responsible and that they should make the final decision. I am just wondering if the OP has decided this because the child is not comfortable in the group setting or if the child feels comfortable receiving the precious blood.

The reason I ask is that I have 4 kids from age 19 down to 10. Only one of them feels comfortable recieving the precious blood on a regular basis (the 16 yo), the 19 does on occasion as does the 14 but the 10 yo never does. I have always left it up to them.

As far as the family or group thing…every kid is different some feel more comfortable with mom and dad and yet others seem to need to be with peers.

I am very glad that the OP views this as a family occasion and wishes to have the child receive with the family and under both species if the child is comfortable with this, or the OP takes every opportunity to make the child feel comfortable with this decision.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Brendan:

Canonically speaking, it is the pastor’s decision on if a first communicant is properly disposed, so the pastor could refuse a first communicant.

But generally, you are correct.

You are correct that it is the pastors decision, along with the parents and catechists. However he must decide this long before the child approaches to receive. If the pastor has included the child in the class list of First Communicants. Then that may be taken as his approval for them to receive the Sacrament.

 

[frommi]

BlestOne:

The reason I ask is that I have 4 kids from age 19 down to 10. Only one of them feels comfortable recieving the precious blood on a regular basis (the 16 yo), the 19 does on occasion as does the 14 but the 10 yo never does. I have always left it up to them.

I know I’ll get yanked over the Council of Trent coals by saying this…

But my thought is…

At the Last Supper…when Jesus said “This is my blood, Take and Drink”…Can you picture the apostles going “No thanks”.

If it is offered, I don’t know why anyone would want to refuse it.

 

[outtawork]

BlestOne:

I hate to be the party pooper here but i have a question…

How does the child feel about receiving with the family and not the group, but also receiving under both species?

in our case it was our child who initially had a problem with not receiving both species… she came home from class that night and expressed her concerns quite honestly - she understands that she doesn’t have to have both, but believes that 1) if both are offered to the rest of the parish, the children should be offered that as well since this is about them coming into full communion with the church and 2) that the decision was made “to save time and mess on the white dresses and tuxedos”.

as far as receiving as a family - she would like to because her brother was able to… i also see the value in that because we are a unit, but i understand the logistics that prevent that and can live with them…

thanks for the great (name removed by moderator)ut… it has reassured me that there are lots of people out there that believe in the true solemnity of this great event for the children, not just in the “event planning”.

 

[Brendan]

frommi:

I know I’ll get yanked over the Council of Trent coals by saying this…

But my thought is…

At the Last Supper…when Jesus said “This is my blood, Take and Drink”…Can you picture the apostles going “No thanks”.

If it is offered, I don’t know why anyone would want to refuse it.

It IS always offered. It is offered under the appearance of bread.

When one recieves the Eucharist, one recieves ALL of Christ. The only difference is how it appears to our senses.

So in every reception of the Eucharist, we do “Take and Drink”

 

[frommi]

Brendan:

It IS always offered. It is offered under the appearance of bread.

When one recieves the Eucharist, one recieves ALL of Christ. The only difference is how it appears to our senses.

So in every reception of the Eucharist, we do “Take and Drink”

Thanks for the transcendtalist lecutre…

I fully understand that Christ is fully present in both species.

But even our own bishops have called receiving both species as a ‘fuller sign’.

If both species are offered at a mass (as I believe they should be), then we should partake of both species…and to those places that do intiction as a way to force people to take it on the tongue (like the Grotto), shame on them

 

[johnnykins]

frommi:

I know I’ll get yanked over the Council of Trent coals by saying this…

But my thought is…

At the Last Supper…when Jesus said “This is my blood, Take and Drink”…Can you picture the apostles going “No thanks”.

If it is offered, I don’t know why anyone would want to refuse it.

1. Unsurprisingly, you make no allowance for not being a state of grace or having observed the 1 hour fast
2. You receive both the body and blood in just the species of bread.

Yes you should be raked over the tridentine coals for that one - to mention it makes clear you know better.

 

[frommi]

1. Unsurprisingly, you make no allowance for not being a state of grace or having observed the 1 hour fast
2. You receive both the body and blood in just the species of bread.

Yes you should be raked over the tridentine coals for that one - to mention it makes clear you know better.

You are correct…but as our bishops point out…

however, by reason of the sign value, sharing in both eucharistic species reflects more fully the sacred realities that the Liturgy signifies, the Church in her wisdom has made provisions in recent years so that more frequent eucharistic participation from both the sacred host and the chalice of salvation might be made possible for the laity in the Latin Church.

 

[johnnykins]

frommi:

You are correct…but as our bishops point out…

sharing in both eucharistic species reflects more fully the sacred realities that the Liturgy signifies

No one’s denied this. To suggest that something is missing by not receiving under both species is Anathema - as you well know. So yes, you still need the tridentine raking.

 

[frommi]

johnnykins:

No one’s denied this. To suggest that something is missing by not receiving under both species is Anathema - as you well know. So yes, you still need the tridentine raking.

Understand that I didn’t feel as though something is ‘missing’. However, I think the Gospel mandate to “Take and Drink” is quite clear. Jesus didn’t say…“If you want to skip this don’t worry, your covered”

 

[Brendan]

frommi:

…and to those places that do intiction as a way to force people to take it on the tongue (like the Grotto), shame on them

Why is that?

Intinction is the fullest sign of all.

The symbolism of have both speices is well and good, but having them seperated adds an un-theological element.

It portrays the elements as being seperated when they should be unified.

The elements are consecrated seperatly as a demonstration of the death of Christ. Body is seperated from Blood. They are presented reunified as a symbol of the Resurrection, the Body and Blood are together, there is new Life.

And that is therefore the best possible symbolism for the Eucharist. Body and Blood united in a Risen Christ.

If your claim is that they offer intinction only as a way to ‘force’ people to recieve (we do not ‘take’ ) Communion, and not out of a sense of deeper symbolism, I would like to hear your proof on that.

Otherwise, it seems that you are being uncharitable.

 

[johnnykins]

frommi:

Understand that I didn’t feel as though something is ‘missing’. However, I think the Gospel mandate to “Take and Drink” is quite clear. Jesus didn’t say…“If you want to skip this don’t worry, your covered”

Again, you can’t slip out of the tridentine slap you deserve. “Take and drink” happens in the Mass when the priest drinks whether you or anyone else drinks the wine - and again you know that. You cannor reformulate Trent simply because you want to.

 

[arieh0310]

Brendan:

Intinction is the fullest sign of all.

The symbolism of have both speices is well and good, but having them seperated adds an un-theological element.

Exactly, I really, really like intinction. I wish we would copy our Eastern bretheren on this practice (and we would get the added benefit of no EMHCs)