No wine at first communion mass?

[PazzoGrande]

for those of us who are not priests.

Maybe he meant it’s more like for special occassions. In places where the Precious Blood isn’t usually offered, it would be offered during things like Wedding Masses. If pressed to clarify what he meant, I think he’d probably articulate it better. Saying that it’s “too special” sends the wrong message, but we’re all guilty of answering inappropriately and giving the wrong impression at times, right?

 

[ConstantineTG]

I think it is unfair for the priest to even have that option in the first place.

 

[Jimmygill88]

There is nothing inappropriate in offering Communion under both species to children. In practice, though, I don’t see many receiving that way after they make their First Communion. But it’s their choice to make in consultation with their parents.

In the UK communion of both ‘species’ is the exeption rather than the rule and is never seen at 1st communions. I imagine that handing a 7 year old a heavy chalice would present practical concerns.

 

[Jimmygill88]

Hi

Tomorrow is the First Communion Mass at my Church. I am a Eucharistic Minister and asked my priest last week if he needed ministers for the Mass. He said no, as he is not going to offer wine during the Mass. He is not too well, and I think he wanted an easier time. He also thinks it eliminates potential problems e.g. children being unsure whether to take the blood of Christ and being nervous about it. Fr said they could make that decision at a later Mass if they wanted to.

I know there is no requirement that all Catholics take both the body and blood of Christ at communion, but am wondering whether my priest is being unfair by not offering the children that choice on their special day, some of the older Parishoners certainly think this. The decision is definitely dividing our Parish somewhat, as this is the first year this has happened.

Just wondered if anyone had any opinions on this?
Thanks
Simmie

Yes! I think he’s 100% correct. And what is even better is that these kids are getting 1st communion from the Priest and not Eucharistic Ministers

 

[The_Idiot]

In the UK communion of both ‘species’ is the exeption rather than the rule and is never seen at 1st communions. I imagine that handing a 7 year old a heavy chalice would present practical concerns.

My last Diocese it was the norm rather than the exception

The Parish I was attending - 1 priest and one EMHC with the Ciboria and 4 EMHC with the Chalices .

I understand it was the same throughout the Diocese

 

[arkwright]

My last Diocese it was the norm rather than the exception

The Parish I was attending - 1 priest and one EMHC with the Ciboria and 4 EMHC with the Chalices .

I understand it was the same throughout the Diocese

That is good to hear , for at the Last Supper Jesus commanded that the consecrated bread be taken and eaten AND that the consecrated wine be taken and drunk .

Jesus’ command is so clear and straightforward . Take and eat of His Body in the form of bread . Take and drink of His Blood in the form of wine .

 

[simmie]

Yes! I think he’s 100% correct. And what is even better is that these kids are getting 1st communion from the Priest and not Eucharistic Ministers

At our parish, Eucharistic Ministers only give the wine, the priest gives the host himself.

Thanks everyone for your comments, I have just arrived back from the First Communions, which were wonderful. The decision still caused a few raised eyebrows amongst some of the congregation… There was one Eucharistic Minister present to give wine to the adults, but only on one side of the Church. Some people were not happy that they couldn’t receive wine too!

But the Mass went well and the children and their families enjoyed it -so a success I think!

 

[SwizzleStick]

At our parish, Eucharistic Ministers only give the wine, the priest gives the host himself.

Thanks everyone for your comments, I have just arrived back from the First Communions, which were wonderful. The decision still caused a few raised eyebrows amongst some of the congregation… There was one Eucharistic Minister present to give wine to the adults, but only on one side of the Church. Some people were not happy that they couldn’t receive wine too!..

I’m sorry, but the use of the words “wine” and “host” above from an EMHC instead of “body” and “blood” bothers me.

…But the Mass went well and the children and their families enjoyed it -so a success I think!

The children received a Sacrament. The most important thing is that the Mass was reverent and holy, and that the children were aware of the Real Presence in that Sacrament they received.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I think it is unfair for the priest to even have that option in the first place.

I have to admit that I had a similar though as I have read through this thread.

Could it be that there are too many options?

That said, in this case, if it is a pastoral decision, then that’s that - it is the priest’s decision to make.

FWIW …

I don’t remember any of my RC cousins, who made their First Communions in the 70s and early 80s, ever having partaken of the Cup on the occasion. In fact, I don’t ever remember the Cup being offered over the many occasions when we would attend Mass with them on Sundays (when my dad had to work and we couldn’t go to our own EC church). This itself could have been a pastoral decision for all I know, as the parish did enjoy a large congregation and the pews were generally filled at each Mass. They did have the assistant pastors distribute the Holy Eucharist at every Mass, but again, only the Host was offered as I clearly recall.

As a consequence, partaking of the Precious Blood is something I have never done when attending Mass in the Latin Church, to this day. The reason? It was not part of my “formation” in the Latin Church, and the thought still makes me rather nervous. Funny to think of it that way, as I was never nervous receiving both Species via liturgical spoon in my own EC church. I shared this because IMHO this is the danger of not preparing these youngsters to receive both the Most Pure Body AND Precious Blood. Follow-up catechesis would be a necessity, so it seems.

That said, I can understand why some would be disappointed that this is not part of the First Communion experience. However, under current practices with later Confirmation and more universal offering of the Cup in general, there seems to be ample opportunity to engage these youngsters and get them accustomed to receiving both the Most Pure Body and Precious Blood, so that they are comfortable doing so throughout their adult lives.

 

[Brendan]

Intinction is not a Roman Catholic practice ordinarily. It’s an Eastern practice.

It is not widely used in the Roman practice, but Church law permits it “always and everywhere”

Intinction with reception on the tongue always and everywhere remains a legitimate option, by virtue of the general liturgical law of the Roman Rite.

Cardinal Arinze, prefect of the CDWDS, to the US Bishops

adoremus.org/1106ExtraordinaryMinisters.html

 

[Phemie]

Yes! I think he’s 100% correct. And what is even better is that these kids are getting 1st communion from the Priest and not Eucharistic Ministers

First Communion is to be given ONLY by the priest. In our parish it’s done under both species but not by intinction. The EMHC stands next to the priest, with the chalice. Fr. gives the child a Host and then takes the chalice from the EMHC and offers it to the child. After all the children have received, the EMCH then goes to his/her station with the chalice and everyone else who wishes to receive Communion does so in the usual manner.

 

[SwizzleStick]

I’m sorry, but the use of the words “wine” and “host” above from an EMHC instead of “body” and “blood” bothers me.

The children received a Sacrament. The most important thing is that the Mass was reverent and holy, and that the children were aware of the Real Presence in that Sacrament they received.

I apologize for my post above. My opinion is the same, but I was perhaps a bit grumpy in the way I expressed it, so I apologize for that. I really need coffee this morning. Or, maybe a little more sleep, but that will have to wait until tonight I guess.

 

[thistle]

Hi

Tomorrow is the First Communion Mass at my Church. I am a Eucharistic Minister and asked my priest last week if he needed ministers for the Mass. He said no, as he is not going to offer wine during the Mass. He is not too well, and I think he wanted an easier time. He also thinks it eliminates potential problems e.g. children being unsure whether to take the blood of Christ and being nervous about it. Fr said they could make that decision at a later Mass if they wanted to.

I know there is no requirement that all Catholics take both the body and blood of Christ at communion, but am wondering whether my priest is being unfair by not offering the children that choice on their special day, some of the older Parishoners certainly think this. The decision is definitely dividing our Parish somewhat, as this is the first year this has happened.

Just wondered if anyone had any opinions on this?
Thanks
Simmie

You are not a Eucharistic Minister. The priest is the Eucharistic Minister. The non-ordained cannot be Eucharistic Ministers. You are an EMHC which is not a Eucharistic Minister.

 

[Deo_Gratias42]

Yes! I think he’s 100% correct. And what is even better is that these kids are getting 1st communion from the Priest and not Eucharistic Ministers

The priest is the Eucharistic Minister. You mean the extraordinary ministers of holy communion.

I had to receive my first communion from an EMHC. I can’t remember the first time I received communion from a priest. Maybe visiting in a small town.

Anyway, today is First Communion at our parish and everyone will receive under one species, as that is how it is in the EF. It’s not a big deal. When I grew up in the 90s we didn’t receive under both species, and I didn’t feel like I was being left out of anything or being treated unfairly. When I was a kid, things were different.

 

[SwizzleStick]

I’m sorry, but the use of the words “wine” and “host” above from an EMHC instead of “body” and “blood” bothers me.

The children received a Sacrament. The most important thing is that the Mass was reverent and holy, and that the children were aware of the Real Presence in that Sacrament they received.

I apologize for my post above. My opinion is the same, but I was perhaps a bit grumpy in the way I expressed it, so I apologize for that. I really need coffee this morning. Or, maybe a little more sleep, but that will have to wait until tonight I guess.

Since I was so critical in my post referenced above, I also need to be critical of myself. I should have capitalized “Body” and “Blood” and failed to do so.

 

[simmie]

The priest is the Eucharistic Minister. You mean the extraordinary ministers of holy communion.

Yes, I do mean EMHC. Although in our Parish the terms Eucharistic Minister and EMHC are used inter-changeably by our priest and also older members of the congregation. As are host and wine with body and blood. Hence my earlier comments.

Yes, of course the sacrament is the most important part. It was a very reverent occasion and the children were definitely aware of how important the Mass was. But we also want them to enjoy their special day and feel part of the Church. I think all of the above were definitely achieved.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I have to admit that I had a similar though as I have read through this thread.

Could it be that there are too many options?

That said, in this case, if it is a pastoral decision, then that’s that - it is the priest’s decision to make.

FWIW …

I don’t remember any of my RC cousins, who made their First Communions in the 70s and early 80s, ever having partaken of the Cup on the occasion. In fact, I don’t ever remember the Cup being offered over the many occasions when we would attend Mass with them on Sundays (when my dad had to work and we couldn’t go to our own EC church). This itself could have been a pastoral decision for all I know, as the parish did enjoy a large congregation and the pews were generally filled at each Mass. They did have the assistant pastors distribute the Holy Eucharist at every Mass, but again, only the Host was offered as I clearly recall.

As a consequence, partaking of the Precious Blood is something I have never done when attending Mass in the Latin Church, to this day. The reason? It was not part of my “formation” in the Latin Church, and the thought still makes me rather nervous. Funny to think of it that way, as I was never nervous receiving both Species via liturgical spoon in my own EC church. I shared this because IMHO this is the danger of not preparing these youngsters to receive both the Most Pure Body AND Precious Blood. Follow-up catechesis would be a necessity, so it seems.

That said, I can understand why some would be disappointed that this is not part of the First Communion experience. However, under current practices with later Confirmation and more universal offering of the Cup in general, there seems to be ample opportunity to engage these youngsters and get them accustomed to receiving both the Most Pure Body and Precious Blood, so that they are comfortable doing so throughout their adult lives.

Both sacred species should be offered to all eligible all the time. Theology should not trump tradition.

 

[wasserfall]

I think it is unfair for the priest to even have that option in the first place.

I think it is unfair for eastern Catholics to try to impose their practices on the Latin rite.

 

[Deo_Gratias42]

Both sacred species should be offered to all eligible all the time. Theology should not trump tradition.

Given the abuse of armies of EMHC’S and the confusion of the laity regarding each species containing the body, blood soul and divinity each and that receiving under both species doesn’t give one “more Jesus”, I think the practice of offering bob species to the congregation must stop. It amazes me that people will actually parish shop so they can receive both.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I think it is unfair for eastern Catholics to try to impose their practices on the Latin rite.

a. Who’s imposing?
b. Who brought out Eastern practices? I’m sure it wasn’t me.

Given the abuse of armies of EMHC’S and the confusion of the laity regarding each species containing the body, blood soul and divinity each and that receiving under both species doesn’t give one “more Jesus”, I think the practice of offering bob species to the congregation must stop. It amazes me that people will actually parish shop so they can receive both.

That is what I am saying. The Theology is correct, receiving under both kinds doesn’t give us “more Jesus”. But Theology shouldn’t trump Tradition. Fact is, Jesus instituted the Eucharist using bread and wine. We shouldn’t impose a practice that is the contrary. People should be free to receive under one species for whatever reason, but not because they have no other choice.