C
ConstantineTG
Guest
So how do you fight sin if you receive no grace?
- Status
V
Vico
Guest
Per the western theology once baptised we have grace of faith and hope and charity, and the benefit of actual graces, and of sanctifying grace, but this is not sufficient to save us if we do not also preserve charity, lost through a serious sin. Even then we receive help from God but not through the sacraments of the living. When we receive the sacrament of Penance (which is called a sacrament of the dead like baptism), we are worthy again to receive the sacraments of the living again because we have through our contrition been granted the sanctifying grace. The eastern theology is more general, yet even so, we do not receive the Body and Blood of God unworthily lest we be consumed by fire. St. John of Damascus said (Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith):
The body and blood of Christ are making for the support of our soul and body, without being consumed or suffering corruption, not making for the draught (God forbid!) but for our being and preservation, a protection against all kinds of injury, a purging from all uncleanness: should one receive base gold, they purify it by the critical burning lest in the future we be condemned with this world. They purify from diseases and all kinds of calamities; according to the words of the divine Apostles (5), For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. This too is what he says, So that he that partaketh of the body and blood of Christ unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself (6). Being purified by this, we are united to the body of Christ and to His Spirit and become the body of Christ.
T
Tony_the_mad
Guest
1 Corinthians 11:27 “Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and the blood of the Lord”.
As in all cases, God is not bound by the rules of the Catholic Church; if He decides to give His grace to someone in mortal sin who receives communion, that is His decision.
But the Church’s teaching and discipline is quite clear that anyone under the state of mortal sin must first remove the stain of that sin through confession before receiving Holy Communion. To do otherwise is itself a mortal sin and that person ‘eats and drinks condemnation’ on themselves.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
There is nothing in that verse that says one who is in mortal sin does not receive grace.
A
anonymous123abc
Guest
I used to think, based on John 6:53-54, that the Eucharist is very important for salvation. That if you go through your life without having Holy Communion, you risk not gaining salvation (not saying that I thought it was necessary for salvation, but thought that it might be).
According to John 6:53:54
And apparently the Council of Trent declared
Would the Latin Rite priest even allow this?
According to John 6:53:54
However, I recently read the following
Catholic Encyclopedia - Communion of Children newadvent.org/cathen/04170b.htm
And apparently the Council of Trent declared
Wikipedia - Infant communion (see Catholicism section) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_communion
- What does ‘anathema’ mean here? Would this still apply today? If so, who would it apply to?
- In addition, Luke 18:16-17 states
Hence, is it ok for a** Latin** Rite Catholic the parent to think (based on John 6 and Luke 18 [see above]) ‘I want to my infant child to have Holy Communion** just in case** it is necessary for salvation (and to actually to his/her son/daughter to church and give him/her the Eucharist)?
Would the Latin Rite priest even allow this?
- Is it ok for a Eastern Rite Catholic the parent to think (based on John 6 and Luke 18 [see above]) ‘I want to my infant child to have Holy Communion just in case it is necessary for salvation (and to actually to his/her son/daughter to church and give him/her the Eucharist)?
T
Tony_the_mad
Guest
As no-one else seems to be explaining things from the Roman rite perspective, I will give my best shot.
As a Eucharistic minister in the Roman rite, I was taught to give Communion to young children of other rites. Unfortunately, not all dioceses are as enlightened as they should be.
The Catholic point of view about the order and age restrictions of sacraments is that they are disciplines and not matters of faith. Each rite should follow the disciplines of their rite under their own traditions which are enforced by their own Patriarch. In my opinion, this means that no rite should claim that their tradition is the only valid method.
That should not mean that we should not discuss the pros and cons of our respective systems. The opinions of the Eastern Catholics and the Orthodox Christians expressed in this thread has helped me both to understand their rites and my own much better and has given me food for thought.
While I cannot claim it to be the more ancient practice, in some ways the delaying of the sacrament of Communion is more consistent with the practices of the early and ancient Church. Consider 1 Corinthians 11:29: “For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.” New converts to Church from the earliest Church until and including the present day must go through a period of instruction when they do not attend the entire mass nor receive communion. Is it really too much to extend this ancient tradition to include those who are born in the Church?
Second, the Catholic method works very well with in the totality of their practices and discipline of their rite. To transfer the methods of the Eastern Catholic rites to that of the Roman rite is akin to driving on the left side of the road in the US. As a Catholic in the Roman Rite, I have fond spiritual memories of my first communion and confirmation. In the Roman rite the sacraments of initiation are important milestones in a person’s life. Confirmation and Communion are not something that is done to you, but is something you prepare and make sacrifices for. (I say this not to denigrate those who do it differently, but only to explain why we do it this way and why we cannot change it easily nor should we be asked to change it.)
There are of course weaknesses to our method. For one, the important link between Baptism and Confirmation is weakened and was almost lost. We are currently fighting to restore that link in our rite. Also, the fact that 2 of the sacraments of initiation are done within the memory of the initiates can sometimes lead people to focus too much on their experience of the sacraments and not the grace given by God. My sister for instance is disappointed that she has no memory of her Baptism and feels cheated of the perception of that grace and to some extent she feels that her Baptism wasn’t valid. But, overall this method has worked very well for us for a thousand years just as other methods have worked well for other rites.
As a Eucharistic minister in the Roman rite, I was taught to give Communion to young children of other rites. Unfortunately, not all dioceses are as enlightened as they should be.
The Catholic point of view about the order and age restrictions of sacraments is that they are disciplines and not matters of faith. Each rite should follow the disciplines of their rite under their own traditions which are enforced by their own Patriarch. In my opinion, this means that no rite should claim that their tradition is the only valid method.
That should not mean that we should not discuss the pros and cons of our respective systems. The opinions of the Eastern Catholics and the Orthodox Christians expressed in this thread has helped me both to understand their rites and my own much better and has given me food for thought.
While I cannot claim it to be the more ancient practice, in some ways the delaying of the sacrament of Communion is more consistent with the practices of the early and ancient Church. Consider 1 Corinthians 11:29: “For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.” New converts to Church from the earliest Church until and including the present day must go through a period of instruction when they do not attend the entire mass nor receive communion. Is it really too much to extend this ancient tradition to include those who are born in the Church?
Second, the Catholic method works very well with in the totality of their practices and discipline of their rite. To transfer the methods of the Eastern Catholic rites to that of the Roman rite is akin to driving on the left side of the road in the US. As a Catholic in the Roman Rite, I have fond spiritual memories of my first communion and confirmation. In the Roman rite the sacraments of initiation are important milestones in a person’s life. Confirmation and Communion are not something that is done to you, but is something you prepare and make sacrifices for. (I say this not to denigrate those who do it differently, but only to explain why we do it this way and why we cannot change it easily nor should we be asked to change it.)
There are of course weaknesses to our method. For one, the important link between Baptism and Confirmation is weakened and was almost lost. We are currently fighting to restore that link in our rite. Also, the fact that 2 of the sacraments of initiation are done within the memory of the initiates can sometimes lead people to focus too much on their experience of the sacraments and not the grace given by God. My sister for instance is disappointed that she has no memory of her Baptism and feels cheated of the perception of that grace and to some extent she feels that her Baptism wasn’t valid. But, overall this method has worked very well for us for a thousand years just as other methods have worked well for other rites.
T
Tony_the_mad
Guest
I have a feeling that we are using slightly different meaning of the same words. Are you claiming that those who eat and drink the body and blood of the Lord while under the state of mortal sin are not doing so ‘unworthily’. Or are you claiming that one can receive God’s grace while at the same time ‘answering for the body and blood of the Lord.’ I can understand the latter point if we understand that ‘answering for the body and blood of the Lord’ is a form of grace in the same sense that the ‘purgatory’ or burning away of the baser portions of ourselves as described in 1 Cor. 3:10-17 is grace.
D
DavidFilmer
Guest
In the Anglican Church, I was taught that Baptism and Eucharist were “generally necessary” for salvation. Speaking of Baptism, Our Lord also said, “unless you are born again of water and the Spirit, you cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.”
In the Orthodox Church, I have heard that Baptized infants are given (upon their Baptism) Eucharist (in a tiny spoonful of a slurry of the Precious Body and Blood).
Yet, these three faiths (Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican) absolutely affirm that a person who is baptized (only) and then suffers death is guaranteed salvation. These three faiths affirm that any baptized person is guaranteed salvation if (s)he is not guilty of mortal sin. And these three faiths all affirm that nobody under the age of reason is capable of mortal sin.
In the Orthodox Church, I have heard that Baptized infants are given (upon their Baptism) Eucharist (in a tiny spoonful of a slurry of the Precious Body and Blood).
Yet, these three faiths (Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican) absolutely affirm that a person who is baptized (only) and then suffers death is guaranteed salvation. These three faiths affirm that any baptized person is guaranteed salvation if (s)he is not guilty of mortal sin. And these three faiths all affirm that nobody under the age of reason is capable of mortal sin.
T
The_Idiot
Guest
David
both Orthodoxy and Eastern Catholicism most of them
] Commune children.
In both Orthodoxy and Eastern Catholicism, children at baptism receive all the Sacraments of Initiation - Baptism , Chrismation Confirmation ] and Holy Communion. They continue to Receive Holy Communion thereafter.
BTW - you said
These children receive a tiny portion of the Blood of Christ .
both Orthodoxy and Eastern Catholicism most of them
] Commune children.In both Orthodoxy and Eastern Catholicism, children at baptism receive all the Sacraments of Initiation - Baptism , Chrismation Confirmation ] and Holy Communion. They continue to Receive Holy Communion thereafter.
BTW - you said
slurry ?? not a good term to be using to describe the most precious Body and Blood of Our Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ.
These children receive a tiny portion of the Blood of Christ .
D
dean24us
Guest
First off, let me say that I find this discussion both interesting and (in my case) timely. My 7 year old daughter recently asked why she wasn’t allowed to fully participate in the Eucharist, and I gave her the standard “the Church wants to make sure your old enough understand why it’s so important” answer. However, it left me with several questions that I had not previously pondered, and I have found this thread very useful in answering some of them.
With that said…
God bless,
Dean
With that said…
I tried to do some independent research as to the Roman Catholic reasoning for this change, but most of the documents I have found have been more akin to conjecture than anything. As I understand it, the idea of waiting until the age of reason is a relatively recent thing, but I can’t find anything from the Magisterium explaining the reason for the change. Any recommendations?
God bless,
Dean
T
TheDoctor
Guest
In general, nothing is necessary for salvation as God can choose to save whom He wants in whatever way He wants, i.e. a Muslim or Jew or Hindu may be saved through God’s grace even though they are non-baptized. Think of these cases as an extraordinary way to salvation.
The ordinary way to salvation is through baptism (which washes away all sin, including original sin) and not sinning against God by loving Him, loving your neighbor and following the commandments. In the Latin Rite (I can’t speak for the Eastern Rites) we say that children under the age of reason cannot commit a mortal sin, so after baptism up until the age of reason there is nothing they can do to condemn themselves (which is what mortal sin does) and therefore they don’t need the Eucharist or any other Sacrament in order to be go to Heaven.
As to why the Eucharist is not given to children in the Latin Rite until the age of reason, this is what I have come to understand (everyone please jump in): The Eucharist is given to us by Christ (among other graces) to strengthen us in grace to love God, our neighbor and follow the commandments. So children under the age of reason do not need the grace of the Eucharist as they cannot commit a mortal sin, it is delayed until they can understand what it is and why they receive it. This is also way Confession is not required in the Latin Rite for children under the age of reason.
I sense in the OP’s question a desire to give their child communion even though it is forbidden for them to do so. Maybe I am reading too much into he post, but my advice is to follow the teachings and Traditions of the rite you are in.
Edit: oops, sorry, I see the OP is “leaning toward Catholic” and is not. My bad.
The ordinary way to salvation is through baptism (which washes away all sin, including original sin) and not sinning against God by loving Him, loving your neighbor and following the commandments. In the Latin Rite (I can’t speak for the Eastern Rites) we say that children under the age of reason cannot commit a mortal sin, so after baptism up until the age of reason there is nothing they can do to condemn themselves (which is what mortal sin does) and therefore they don’t need the Eucharist or any other Sacrament in order to be go to Heaven.
As to why the Eucharist is not given to children in the Latin Rite until the age of reason, this is what I have come to understand (everyone please jump in): The Eucharist is given to us by Christ (among other graces) to strengthen us in grace to love God, our neighbor and follow the commandments. So children under the age of reason do not need the grace of the Eucharist as they cannot commit a mortal sin, it is delayed until they can understand what it is and why they receive it. This is also way Confession is not required in the Latin Rite for children under the age of reason.
I sense in the OP’s question a desire to give their child communion even though it is forbidden for them to do so. Maybe I am reading too much into he post, but my advice is to follow the teachings and Traditions of the rite you are in.
Edit: oops, sorry, I see the OP is “leaning toward Catholic” and is not. My bad.
D
DavidFilmer
Guest
I was told that the Host was dissolved in the precious Blood (which would make it a slurry, which means “a suspension of solid particles in a liquid”) and administered by a small spoon. You are saying they receive only the precious Blood? Even at Baptism?
How is it administered? A liquid is difficult to administer using a spoon without spilling. I have seen the precious Blood administered with a glass tube (similar to a pipette). Is this how it is done in the Orthodox Church?
T
The_Idiot
Guest
Babies and young children and adults for that matter ] Receive the Holy Gifts from a golden spoon - young children Receive only the Most Precious Blood.
With a baby the priest very very carefully drops 1 drop of the Most Precious Blood into the mouth of the child - some priests with a tiny baby will dip their own finger into the Chalice and touch the child’s lips .
Remember also that in the East the bread used for Communion is leavened and absorbs the Precious Blood but it does not dissolve .
With a baby the priest very very carefully drops 1 drop of the Most Precious Blood into the mouth of the child - some priests with a tiny baby will dip their own finger into the Chalice and touch the child’s lips .
Remember also that in the East the bread used for Communion is leavened and absorbs the Precious Blood but it does not dissolve .
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
For one thing, you cannot easily dissolve the Precious Body as the bread that is made to be the Precious Body is leavened and thus is packed, unlike the thin wafers used in the Latin Rite. Also, even at small amounts, the digestive system of an infant may not be ready for that, so not a good idea.
Communion is given through the same spoon that is used for everybody else. Only very tiny amount is used but the spoon is put in the mouth of the baby. In our parish the priest then observes the baby for a few seconds and wipes off any spills. I would expect the same care from other priests.
V
Vico
Guest
The teaching is clearly that the infants do not have the necessary understanding to realize the gravity of what they do. Also there are some older than that who have mental incapacity that also cannot understand. They could commit what is objectively a grave sin, but subjectively cannot. As a result they do not loose the sanctification received in baptism. So if the believe is held contrary to that it would be wrong, east or west Catholic.
However, per the practice of the eastern Catholic churches that have infant communion, the nurturing of the Holy Spirit in the company of the community of the faithful is important. Early experiences reinforce us, even if not necessary for salvation during the first years, are beneficial to maintain our holiness at the age of reason and later.
B
Brendan
Guest
Beachgirl,
Canon Law requires that the Sacraments be given to those whol lawfully request them.
In the case of the infant child of an Eastern Catholic, the child, being under Eastern Canon Law is to recieve the Sacraments of Chrismation and Holy Eucharist at the time of Baptism.
SInce the rightful guardians of the child are requesting them, and they are not prohibited by law from recieving them, the priest, uinder ROMAN Canon Law, cannot refuse them
For the priest not to comply would mean a violation of the instructions of Rome. .
G
Gorgias
Guest
Look for Quam singulari, a Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments, August 8, 1910 (AAS 2, 1910, 577-583). I don’t know if it’s available in English online. At the Vatican site, you can find it in the original Latin at %20-%20ocr.pdf
Blessings,
G.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Here’s a nice photo of an infant receiving her first Communion
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/483305_4315340161961_2041947400_n.jpg
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/483305_4315340161961_2041947400_n.jpg
C
countertenor
Guest
D
dochawk
Guest
SHMW’s explanation was the closest, but incomplete.
All of the “explanations” post date the practice.
In the west, Confirmation was separated from Communion and Baptism to reinforce the role of the bishop and his authority. He would confirm those in need when he visited.
communion to infants has always been as described above, as the Precious Blood.
add an intervening heresy that Communion was not complete unless both species were received (which was still the norm at the time), and the Cup was withheld from the laity about 700 years ago to flush these folks out.
this necessarily meant not communing infants.
The whole bit about “age of reason” is a later explanation, like so many other things, that took root on its own
try a specifically Eastern Catholic forum such as byzcath.org–Eastern Catholics in the west need to go into such things to figure themselves out
hawk
- Status