Children receiving Communion

  • Thread starter Thread starter StHelena
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

StHelena

Guest
When and why did the Church stop communicating infants and children? Doesn’t Jesus say that without His Body and Blood we have no life in us? If entire families were baptized in the NT, including infants and small children, and we continue that practice today, why do we not also allow them the Eucharist, as the Orthodox do?
 
StHelena said:
When and why did the Church stop communicating infants and children? Doesn’t Jesus say that without His Body and Blood we have no life in us? If entire families were baptized in the NT, including infants and small children, and we continue that practice today, why do we not also allow them the Eucharist, as the Orthodox do?
Click to expand...
Jesus says a lot of different things are required in order to find life. It is the Church alone who decides the proper disciplines and requirements for the Sacraments, (as well as how to correctly interpret Scripture). The Catholic Church requires that communicants be of the age of reason, that they have an understanding of What and Who it is they are receiving. If a child were to die before their 1st Holy Communion it does not consign them to damnation. All this is covered in the Catechism.
 
Correct me if I’m wrong, but only the Roman Catholic Church out of the 23 Catholic Churches, have adopted this “age of reason” to apply to the Sacraments.

I agree, bring back Communion for all. It has been the way the Church has done things in the early days. If it was good for the Apostles and and Early Church Fathers, why is it not good for us today?

Both my kids (2 and 4 months) receive Communion.
 
We give children physical food for their nourishment - this allows them to grow

Why should we not give them spiritual food - the very Body and Blood of Christ - to allow them to grow spiritually ?
 
Receiving the Blessed Sacrament is an intense, mystical act. We have had throughout history examples of many saints who, as children, were well aware of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist and longed to receive it. One example is St. Gerard Maiella, who was 8 years old at a time in which he was not yet allowed to receive the Eucharist, and yet he received the Eucharist from the hands of St. Michael Archangel.

Children must have reached the age of reason in order to understand that Christ is present in the Eucharist, that is, in order to give themselves to Christ, rather than just receiving Him.

“Bring back”??? We must remember that children were not allowed to receive the Eucharist at all until an age of 12 to 14 years old. It was St. Pius X who, greatly enlightened by the Holy Spirit, lowered the age to the “age of reason”, which the Church determined to be around 7 years old, when the child can distinguish between good and evil, but most importantly, when the child is able to distinguish that the species are not bread, but the real Body of Christ.

As for the 7 previous years, we still give them spiritual food…please remember the words of Chirst on this very matter:
“It is written,“‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”
Click to expand...
 
R_C said:
Receiving the Blessed Sacrament is an intense, mystical act. We have had throughout history examples of many saints who, as children, were well aware of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist and longed to receive it. One example is St. Gerard Maiella, who was 8 years old at a time in which he was not yet allowed to receive the Eucharist, and yet he received the Eucharist from the hands of St. Michael Archangel.

Children must have reached the age of reason in order to understand that Christ is present in the Eucharist, that is, in order to give themselves to Christ, rather than just receiving Him.

“Bring back”??? We must remember that children were not allowed to receive the Eucharist at all until an age of 12 to 14 years old. It was St. Pius X who, greatly enlightened by the Holy Spirit, lowered the age to the “age of reason”, which the Church determined to be around 7 years old, when the child can distinguish between good and evil, but most importantly, when the child is able to distinguish that the species are not bread, but the real Body of Christ.

As for the 7 previous years, we still give them spiritual food…please remember the words of Chirst on this very matter:
Click to expand...
The history of children receiving the Eucharist from the time they are baptized goes back to the First Century. It was only at the beginning of the Second Millennium when the Roman Catholic Church changed the age for reception. So yes, it is “bringing back” this age-old, traditional practice. If children can receive the Holy Spirit in Baptism before age of reason, why can’t children receive Christ in the Eucharist?
 
I have also wondered why we wait until “the age of reason” before allowing children receive the Eucharist. Not that I’d dissenting from Church teachings – I simply don’t understand it. Why does it matter if they understand what they are receiving? Or, is there something in Catholic theology that states that a person must understand what they are receiving in order for transubstantiation to “work”?

God bless,
Dean
 
Children do receive the Eucharist. Second grade is the age of First Communion where I live, and they are children -eight years old. This is so those making their First Communion are able to understand what they are doing & why they are doing it. Younger than that and they do not grasp the meaning. The children need to be given instruction before they can understand the sacrament.
 
dean24us said:
I have also wondered why we wait until “the age of reason” before allowing children receive the Eucharist. Not that I’d dissenting from Church teachings – I simply don’t understand it. Why does it matter if they understand what they are receiving? Or, is there something in Catholic theology that states that a person must understand what they are receiving in order for transubstantiation to “work”?

God bless,
Dean
Click to expand...
Does transubstantiation only occur when a person understands? Also, does a person only receive grace when they understand?

Those are the two important questions.
 
StHelena,

The reason that the Latin Catholic Church and some of the eastern Catholic churches have a different sacramental discipline is one of emphasis and also administration. The emphasis in the Latin Church is on perfecting commitment in advance, and in those churches where the full initiation is given to infants, is the nurturing of the Holy Spirit, and that baptism is only completed when partaking of the most Most Pure Body and Blood with the reset of the believing community. (John 6:53.) In both east and west the ideal order (not always followed) of Christian initiation is Baptism, Chrismation (Confirmation), and Eucharist. In the west when the profanation of the Eucharist was feared, the Blood of Christ was withheld from all, therefore infants no longer received because they received liquid only.

Originally whole families were baptized together. Also, originally the bishop initiated, east and west. This practice diversified in east and west when the bishops were not able to get to everyone soon enough, so priests were delegated to initiate in the east, but rather a delay of Confirmation was adopted in the west, with the priest delegated to baptize.

The baptismal tradition is for the bishop to confirm (originally the imposition of hands) rather than for the priest to chrismate with the Holy Myron from the eparch.

Hippolytus’ Apostolic Tradition (earliest Verona edition 215 A.D.) describes this original initiation practice in this order:

Baptism
  1. bishop makes oil of thanksgiving and oil of exorcism
  2. anointing with oil of exorcism
  3. nude baptism (by triple immersion)
  4. anointing with oil of thanksgiving (then dry and get dressed)
Confirmation/Chrismation
  1. then in the church, bishop says dismissal rite over the neophytes: “Lord God, you have made them worthy to receive remission of sins through the laver of regeneration of the Holy Spirit, etc.”
  2. laying on of hands together with oil
  3. sealing with oil on the forehead
  4. the kiss of peace prayer
Eucharist
9. deacons bring oblation (bread and wine, water,milk, and honey *)
10. the oblation is blessed
11. the milk and honey are mixed together
12. the bread is distributed
13. each tastes of the water, milk, and wine, three times.

bombaxo.com/hippolytus.html
  • The Coptic church still preserves the use of milk and honey at the Christian Initiation.
 
dean24us said:
I have also wondered why we wait until “the age of reason” before allowing children receive the Eucharist. Not that I’d dissenting from Church teachings – I simply don’t understand it. Why does it matter if they understand what they are receiving? Or, is there something in Catholic theology that states that a person must understand what they are receiving in order for transubstantiation to “work”?
Click to expand...
Dean,

This is a practice that developed due to historical reasons, in the West. As others have mentioned, communion was given to all (including infants) during the baptism-chrismation-eucharist event, going way back to the early first centuries of the Church. However, as the Church started developing her doctrine of the Eucharist, and understanding what the “Real Presence” actually meant, one side effect appeared: folks restricted the distribution of the Eucharist out of a heightened sense of piety. As a result, the age for reception of the Eucharist – in the West – was raised to the age at which a child received Confirmation (which, for different reasons, had become something that they might receive ten years or more after their baptism).

To your question of what makes transubstantiation ‘work’, the answer is that this isn’t the issue – after all, the Eucharist is the Eucharist by virtue of the action of the priest; it’s presence (or lack thereof) isn’t affected by the recipient (or even the holiness of the priest). However, the ability to receive the grace that the Eucharist provides, the recipient has to be well-disposed (i.e., in a state of grace). So, a person in the state of mortal sin receives the Real Presence in the Eucharist, but receives no grace from it. A child, prior to the ‘age of reason’, could be said to be without imputation of sin. But, would they understand their action?

Blessings,

G.
 
Gorgias said:
So, a person in the state of mortal sin receives the Real Presence in the Eucharist, but receives no grace from it.
Click to expand...
I don’t think the Church teaches this, do you have a source for this?
 
Wouldn’t the “age of reason” argument also effectively bar mentally handicapped people from receiving because they can not discern the presence in some scholastic way? Also, i know the current order in the latin church for initiation rites if different then it was not to long ago. If a child is baptized but doesn’t get confirmed until 8th grade, thus becoming a “full” cathic member, what was she in the meantime? And why can she receive without being fully initiated through confirmation? On a side note, seeing infants receive is a beautiful thing to witness.
 
As has been suggested by some of the posts here the reason for the delay in receiving First Communion by the Roman Church was originally a by-product of the delay in receiving Confirmation.

Pius X no doubt rightly concluded that younger children ought to be allowed to receive the Eucharist but apparently did not conclude that children needed to be confirmed at a younger age first.

Regardless of whether or not they think the Western Church should confirm/chrismate infants at the same time they are baptized, many of the master catechists with whom I have spoken believe that the Roman Church should move to the “restored order” of the sacraments. In other words, Confirmation, at whatever age, should come before First Eucharist.
 
I disagree completely!!! No one has a right to expect a Roman Catholic priest to do things any differently. I would question the priest who did this because he should follow the rules of the diocese in which he practices. We should not change things because others want or expect us to. The “customs of her church” are irrelevant since she was not in her church. I would never go to another church and expect the rules to be changed for me. That is totally disrespectful and rude.
While it is proper to accept the beliefs of others, it is improper to follow their practices when they interfere with the RCC’s Mass.
As for the first part of your post, we are in 2012 and should follow the teachings that are presently in place, not those of times past. The Church has decided things needed to be changed and others should respect this. I did not say the traditions of others were not worthy of dignity, I simply explained what the RCC teaches! People of other traditions should respect those of others rather than expect theirs to be implemented to suit them.
 
ABEACHGIRL said:
I disagree completely!!! No one has a right to expect a Roman Catholic priest to do things any differently. I would question the priest who did this because he should follow the rules of the diocese in which he practices. We should not change things because others want or expect us to. The “customs of her church” are irrelevant since she was not in her church. I would never go to another church and expect the rules to be changed for me. That is totally disrespectful and rude.
While it is proper to accept the beliefs of others, it is improper to follow their practices when they interfere with the RCC’s Mass.
As for the first part of your post, we are in 2012 and should follow the teachings that are presently in place, not those of times past. The Church has decided things needed to be changed and others should respect this. I did not say the traditions of others were not worthy of dignity, I simply explained what the RCC teaches! People of other traditions should respect those of others rather than expect theirs to be implemented to suit them.
Click to expand...
Actually Catholic children who have been confirmed/chrismated/made First Communion are ENTITLED to receive Communion so long as they are physically able to do so. It doesn’t matter if they are infants.
 
ABEACHGIRL said:
I disagree completely!!! No one has a right to expect a Roman Catholic priest to do things any differently. I would question the priest who did this because he should follow the rules of the diocese in which he practices. We should not change things because others want or expect us to. The “customs of her church” are irrelevant since she was not in her church. I would never go to another church and expect the rules to be changed for me. That is totally disrespectful and rude.
While it is proper to accept the beliefs of others, it is improper to follow their practices when they interfere with the RCC’s Mass.
As for the first part of your post, we are in 2012 and should follow the teachings that are presently in place, not those of times past. The Church has decided things needed to be changed and others should respect this. I did not say the traditions of others were not worthy of dignity, I simply explained what the RCC teaches! People of other traditions should respect those of others rather than expect theirs to be implemented to suit them.
Click to expand...
For one, the Eastern Churches to which (name removed by moderator) was referring are Eastern Catholic Churches in full communion with the Pope. It is not disrespectful and rude for those of us in the Eastern Catholic Churches to expect that our children who have been baptized, chrismated, and admitted to Holy Communion be allowed to receive Holy Communion in the Roman Catholic Church, with which we are in full communion. Members of one ritual church who have been admitted to communion in that ritual church and are properly disposed to receive Holy Communion are permitted to receive Holy Communion in any ritual church-this includes infants who are properly disposed. Furthermore, it is the teaching and expectation of the hierarchy of the RCC that exactly that will happen. When a RC priest refuses to commune an Eastern Catholic child, usually a call from the Eastern Catholic bishop to the RC bishop in question will quickly fix that problem. Also, it in no way interferes with the RC Mass to have infants and young children from Eastern Catholic Churches receive Holy Communion, just as it does not interfere with our Divine Liturgies when a 10 year old Roman Catholic who has been admitted to Holy Communion but not yet confirmed visits and receives Holy Communion, even though it is not our traditional practice to commune those not yet confirmed.
 
ConstantineTG said:
I don’t think the Church teaches this, do you have a source for this?
Click to expand...
Baltimore Catechism No. 3

Q. 598. Why are Confirmation, Holy Eucharist, Extreme Unction, Holy Orders, and Matrimony called Sacraments of the living?
A. Confirmation, Holy Eucharist, Extreme Unction, Holy Orders, and Matrimony are called Sacraments of the living because those who receive them worthily are already living the life of grace.

Q. 599. What sin does he commit who receives the Sacraments of the living in mortal sin?
A. He who receives the Sacraments of the living in mortal sin commits a sacrilege, which is a great sin, because it is an abuse of a sacred thing.

Q. 903. Does he who receives Communion in mortal sin receive the body and blood of Christ?
A. He who receives Communion in mortal sin receives the body and blood of Christ, but does not receive His grace, and he commits a great sacrilege.
*
Catechism of the Catholic Church*

1127 Celebrated worthily in faith, the sacraments confer the grace that they signify. 48 Cf. Council of Trent (1547): DS 1605; DS 1606 …

1861 Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God’s forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ’s kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God.

** 2120 ***Sacrilege *consists in profaning or treating unworthily the sacraments and other liturgical actions, as well as persons, things, or places consecrated to God. Sacrilege is a grave sin especially when committed against the Eucharist, for in this sacrament the true Body of Christ is made substantially present for us.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top