First Communion should always be administered by a priest and never outside the celebration of Mass (RS 87). First communicants are to receive the Body of Christ from a priest (RS 87) and the Blood of Christ from a deacon (GIRM 94), when Communion is offered under both species.
Not quite sure how they will do this since one priest may be gone but I bet you we will have a problem. Regardless, I am glad my son will not be receiving both species.
Here is another point we missed at the parish this year(my emphasis in italics):
As the primary educators of their child, parent/guardian have the first and most important influence on the faith development of their child. The best and most fruitful catechesis for the reception of First Communion must involve them. Parishes must provide catechesis for parent/guardian on Eucharist before their child’s first reception of the sacrament. This catechesis is meant to present the Church’s rich teaching of the sacrament. It should be designed to deepen the parent/guardian understanding and love of the sacrament so they can guide their child into fuller participation in the life and worship of the Christian community.
Not only was there no catechesis, there was no meeting, no consult, nada, nothing. Most of these children will probably not be present at Sunday Masses because the parents aren't being told it is their duty. That's a two-fer sin waiting to happen.
Posts
5 comments:
You know, I know what it says in R.S. about "the fullness of the sign being more clearly evident", but here's what I don't understand:
The Body of Christ fully contains the body, blood, soul and divinity of the Savior. The Precious Blood contains no more, no less.
So - why the big deal about receiving the Precious Blood?
How does it make the fullness of the sign more clearly evident?
The completeness of the Eucharist is something we can neither add to or take from.
If people were properly catechised, the need for a "the fullness of the sign being made more evident" would not exist.
But I seriously believe that many adults AND children think they're only getting "half" if they don't receive the Precious Blood.
This is a catechetical problem which could easily be resolved by a ten minute homily by each pastor.
Of course, then we wouldn't be imitating the protestants, so we wouldn't be ecumenical and all that.
Like I keep saying, under both kinds affords twice the opportunity for sacrilege.
Did you notice the rules?
"should"..."are"
This is a microcosm of a lack of faith...wherever definitive unequivocal statements ought to be used, so often they are not, and even in the "minutiae" this reflects the state of mind of the drafters and those who approve same.
If "are" means "must" say so. If should means "must" say so.
"Parishes must provide catechesis for parent/guardian on Eucharist before their child’s first reception of the sacrament."
Er...are the parents Catholic? How did they get out of confirmation class themselves? What have they been doing since then?
You see, this kind of thing contains within it its own judgment on Councils, Popes, Bishops, Priests, Deacons, Parents, catechists...
BTW: did you copy that down right? I only ask because a certain definite article is missing, i.e."the"
It says "Eucharist" not "the Eucharist." This is a dead giveaway you are in the presence of the "we are Church crowd"..."community" just deepens the suspicion.
It is more than a two-fer, much more. Not only are those who have a positive duty and who have failed partakers (Parents, baptismal promises,catechists, priests) in the sacrilege, there is also another sin (maybe more) in the reception: if one does not believe, yet says "Amen" ("I'll drive a tent peg into that") that means you are bearing false witness.
Yes, I copied and pasted and I missed that "the" factor. Here is the source: http://diocs.org/TCE/pdf/The_Celebration_of_First_Communion.pdf
Makes you wonder. Yeah. We are church alright.
Post a Comment