Difference on teaching about Communion between East and West

  • Thread starter Thread starter ConstantineTG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

ConstantineTG

Guest
I know that babies receive Communion from the moment they are Baptized in the Eastern Churches. However, in the West, its a teaching that one must be cognizant of the fact that he/she is receiving the Eucharist for one to quality to receive. Not only does this apply to small children but also to adults who are sick and/or dying. In fact under Canon Law it states that:

Can. 922 Holy Viaticum for the sick is not to be delayed too long; those who have the care of souls are to be zealous and vigilant that the sick are nourished by Viaticum while fully conscious.

So why is it in the West that one must be able to recognize the Eucharist to receive, while in the East those who are below the age of reason are allowed to receive?
 
Because we believe the grace of the sacrament happens on that person whether they are aware of it or not. Same holds for chrismation. Baptism cleanses the infant, and makes them ready for the indwelling of the holy spirit, who enters upon chrismation, and this makes allows the christian to participate in and receive the holy and life-giving mystery of our lord’s body and blood.

The change of the bread and wine into the body and blood happen during the mass whether you are aware of it or not.
 
Thanks! Thats what I believe too.

By the way, in the Latin Rite, Confirmation can be given at an earlier age if there is danger of death. My son had surgery at 5-days old so we had him baptized in the hospital shortly before. The priest also confirmed him.

Also, I know that a younger child may receive Communion under the same circumstances but again there is the condition that the child must be able to tell the difference between the Eucharist and regular food.
 
I was told at least four Roman Rite dioceses in the United States have restored the order of the sacraments. I’m most familiar with the diocese of phoenix. The age of confirmation is now 7 or 8 around the third grade and is given to children before they receive their first holy communion which is immediately following the confirmation ceremony. It’s a step in the right direction.

Here is an article that will explain it a little better. Cheers!

freerepublic.com/focus/religion/1455027/posts
 
Little_Boy_Lost said:
I was told at least four Roman Rite dioceses in the United States have restored the order of the sacraments. I’m most familiar with the diocese of phoenix. The age of confirmation is now 7 or 8 around the third grade and is given to children before they receive their first holy communion which is immediately following the confirmation ceremony. It’s a step in the right direction.

Here is an article that will explain it a little better. Cheers!

freerepublic.com/focus/religion/1455027/posts
Click to expand...
I’m a Catechist in our parish (and by extension, the diocese) and I’ve heard of a petition to increase the age of Confirmation. The problem is kids tend to stop going to CCD/PREP after they receive the Sacraments. Some kids in fact only show up for the grades they are going for First Communion and Confirmation.

When I was young in the diocese where I belonged, infant Confirmation was still in practice. Curiously though I wasn not Confirmed the same day I was Baptized. I know this because on my certificate it indicates I was Baptized and Confirmed at different parishes.
 
Interesting. Better catechisis? More youth involvement? I really don’t think separating the holy mysteries of the church for accommodation is a good thing.

Off topic. A good friend of mine who is heading the confirmation catechisis of a parish asked me to be a catechist teacher for one of her groups. They are high schoolers. I’ve been debating whether I should. It would be strictly out of a book.
 
Little_Boy_Lost said:
Interesting. Better catechisis? More youth involvement? I really don’t think separating the holy mysteries of the church for accommodation is a good thing.
Click to expand...
I agree, but its a sad reality that people want to receive the Sacraments but won’t bother with the teaching. Its not a problem thats only prevalent here in our diocese but in many places around the world. I don’t fully agree with it but I do understand the reason behind it. I teach high school kids and this year I don’t have students. As soon as they hit Grade 8 and receive Confirmation, thats it. See you at your marriage prep :confused:
Little_Boy_Lost said:
Off topic. A good friend of mine who is heading the confirmation catechisis of a parish asked me to be a catechist teacher for one of her groups. They are high schoolers. I’ve been debating whether I should. It would be strictly out of a book.
Click to expand...
Don’t hesitate to give it an Eastern “flavor”. I think Latin Catholics have a lot to learn from Eastern Catholicism. I think so, and Pope John Paul II thinks so too (ORIENTALE LUMEN).

Eastern traditions helps put a lot of Western traditions and disciplines in perspective.
 
More money and time should be spent to cultivate a culture of participation amongst children and it should carry on through high school. I was at a talk once in the Sacramento Diocese about money spent on youth ministry and how most catholic parishes spend about 1/4 of what protestant parishes do on their youth. Money is only part of a problem.

Ownership is a big problem. So many parishes today are split parishes. With one ethnic group sharing a place with another. I really believe having a separate “Mass” for the minority is bad and does not pull the parish together. With that sort of mentality, I don’t find it hard to see how youth are just another “minority” that need to be taken care and thrown money at every now and again.
 
I was 12 when confirmed (back in the stone ages, way, way, way before Vat II) and had gone to Catholic school and confirmation classes – yet – despite the more overt Catholic culture at that time and the excellent catechsis of that era, especially within the school community, confirmation was not at all meaningful to me. (I was also one of the more “religious” kids, too.)

So many people leave the Church in college or young adulthood and then return years later – I’ve always thought how much more important Confirmation would have become to me personally had I received it at the time of my return to the Church. It seems to me that an “adult commitment” sacrament would be more serious, more solemn, and perhaps better understood.

I’m not sure anyone under 25 has their head on straight about much of anything – I know the catechesis for Confirmation is lengthier and more in-depth than in my era – but I can see an advantage to receiving this sacrament at an older age.
 
challam2010 said:
I was 12 when confirmed (back in the stone ages, way, way, way before Vat II) and had gone to Catholic school and confirmation classes – yet – despite the more overt Catholic culture at that time and the excellent catechsis of that era, especially within the school community, confirmation was not at all meaningful to me. (I was also one of the more “religious” kids, too.)

So many people leave the Church in college or young adulthood and then return years later – I’ve always thought how much more important Confirmation would have become to me personally had I received it at the time of my return to the Church. It seems to me that an “adult commitment” sacrament would be more serious, more solemn, and perhaps better understood.

I’m not sure anyone under 25 has their head on straight about much of anything – I know the catechesis for Confirmation is lengthier and more in-depth than in my era – but I can see an advantage to receiving this sacrament at an older age.
Click to expand...
Yet Confirmation not an “adult commitment”. It is a sealing of the Holy Spirit that is received at Baptism.

Separating Confirmation and Baptism has hurt the theological understanding of the laity towards Confirmation.
 
True enough. Back in the Philippines many people don’t even go for Confirmation until they are about to get married. Its funny when I went with my then-girlfriend-now-wife for confirmation (with her dad and sponsor). There I think was about 15-20 people for confirmation and all but one of them are at least in their 20s and are probably there for marriage. As the priest was talking about the Sacrament he did express his displeasure that the Sacrament has lost its significance to many and they never would have thought of it had it not been a requirement before receiving the Sacrament of Marriage.

I’m not sure if the Catholic schools there today would have a Confirmation program for kids in the Confirmation age. Because during my time infant Confirmation was still allowed, therefore my batch in school never had Confirmation. We did have First Confession and First Communion.
 
ConstantineTG said:
I know that babies receive Communion from the moment they are Baptized in the Eastern Churches. However, in the West, its a teaching that one must be cognizant of the fact that he/she is receiving the Eucharist for one to quality to receive. Not only does this apply to small children but also to adults who are sick and/or dying. In fact under Canon Law it states that:

Can. 922 Holy Viaticum for the sick is not to be delayed too long; those who have the care of souls are to be zealous and vigilant that the sick are nourished by Viaticum while fully conscious.

So why is it in the West that one must be able to recognize the Eucharist to receive, while in the East those who are below the age of reason are allowed to receive?
Click to expand...
I had a soon to be ordained Melkite Deacon explain quickly, and IMO succinctly, that one reason is Jesus said “suffer the little ones to come to me.” He also mentioned (as did another poster, I believe) that our capacity to understand the Eucharist has no bearing on it’s effects. In other words, as he said, if it depended on us understanding the Eucharist fully, we would all be in trouble.🙂
Hope that makes sense.
God Bless,
Pakesh
 
Pakesh said:
I had a soon to be ordained Melkite Deacon explain quickly, and IMO succinctly, that one reason is Jesus said “suffer the little ones to come to me.” He also mentioned (as did another poster, I believe) that our capacity to understand the Eucharist has no bearing on it’s effects. In other words, as he said, if it depended on us understanding the Eucharist fully, we would all be in trouble.🙂
Hope that makes sense.
God Bless,
Pakesh
Click to expand...
I don’t doubt that the effects of Communion is there regardless of our ability to recognize it. And I know the Roman Church’s rule is more diciplinary. I’m just wondering why there is so much emphasis on it, from waiting 'til children are 7 to denying it to dying patients who have lost consciousness but are otherwise alive.
 
Constantine,

I think you may be over-interpreting the Latin practice - pastors of souls should be zealous not to wait, but the Body and Blood of Christ has certainly has been giving to the dying who were barely conscious, to those suffering from dementia, etc. I have never seen the kind of blanket requirement that you are implying.

Jeff
 
ByzKat said:
Constantine,

I think you may be over-interpreting the Latin practice - pastors of souls should be zealous not to wait, but the Body and Blood of Christ has certainly has been giving to the dying who were barely conscious, to those suffering from dementia, etc. I have never seen the kind of blanket requirement that you are implying.

Jeff
Click to expand...
I could be wrong and merely interpreting it from Canon Law. I’ve posted the one that relates to the sick. I can’t remember where I’ve read the other part about children must be able to differentiate the Eucharist from common food, but I’m pretty sure its there and I’ve read it in the past. I’m just a bit lazy now in searching for it.
 
ConstantineTG said:
I don’t doubt that the effects of Communion is there regardless of our ability to recognize it. And I know the Roman Church’s rule is more diciplinary. I’m just wondering why there is so much emphasis on it, from waiting 'til children are 7 to denying it to dying patients who have lost consciousness but are otherwise alive.
Click to expand...
OK, gotcha. I should have read your original post more carefully:thumbsup:
God Bless,
Pakesh
 
ConstantineTG said:
I know that babies receive Communion from the moment they are Baptized in the Eastern Churches. However, in the West, its a teaching that one must be cognizant of the fact that he/she is receiving the Eucharist for one to quality to receive. Not only does this apply to small children but also to adults who are sick and/or dying. In fact under Canon Law it states that:

Can. 922 Holy Viaticum for the sick is not to be delayed too long; those who have the care of souls are to be zealous and vigilant that the sick are nourished by Viaticum while fully conscious.

So why is it in the West that one must be able to recognize the Eucharist to receive, while in the East those who are below the age of reason are allowed to receive?
Click to expand...
Infants were excluded from Latin Church communion after bread only began to be used (Fourth Lateran Council 1215 A.D.). Infants and children not yet to the age of reason may validly and fruitfully receive Holy Communion, but according to the Council of Trent, only baptism is necessary for the salvation of those that have not come to the age of discretion (infants). So in the Latin Church is it no longer practiced, unless giving communion to Eastern Catholics that have already received it in their ritual Church. So it is only a matter of sacramental discipline of the ritual Church.
 
Dear Friends,

I think this is a critically important thread with respect to the issues it raises concerning training Christians in the practice of their faith.

Confirmation classes just won’t do it. Yes, a good supportive family life is important etc.

But I really think that what we need is a period of “lay formation” such as converts get in the RCIA.

I’ve met cradle Catholics who have gone to the RCIA (with non-Catholic friends who were marrying into their families and who wished to join the Church) - WHAT A DIFFERENCE THAT EXPERIENCE MADE IN THEIR LIVES!! 👍

I don’t know what they do to you in RCIA - whatever it is, it is really good. People coming out of that, that I know, are super practitioners of their faith. One fellow who went to Mass all his life went for the RCIA - I know what he will be doing later on today - he will go to Eucharistic Adoration in his parish church as he does every Friday. He is also very active with the St Vincent de Paul Society (his wife, he says, complains that he gives too much money to the poor . . .), he evangelizes others by giving them dvd’s, cd’s and what not. A complete transformation.

I think we need an RCIA program for EVERYONE, a kind of boot camp to teach people how to pray, how to read the scriptures and the catechism, attending Mass - and more importantly WHY we must do so. The Buddhists in Thailand, for example, actually expect that every young Buddhist will spend one year in a Buddhist monastery that will train them in their spiritual practices so they will follow them for life.

Why can’t the Catholic and Orthodox Churches do something similar with an RCIA-type program for one and all? Again, Confirmation and First Communion lessons don’t do it.

We should all be promoting this in our parishes and dioceses/eparchies. If we don’t, then the two largest religious groups in North America will continue to be: Catholics and . . . former Catholics . . .

And don’t let anyone here dissuade me from my views on this! :mad:

Alex
 
Alexander - The problem with RCIA is the same problem as with the entire Roman Church: Inconsistency. Yes, I know a few for whom it’s an incredible experience. For others, it’s a “mark off time” formality. It depends greatly upon the diocese and the instructors.
 
To add, and I speak from my experience as a Catechist in our diocese, is that the level of interest really isn’t there. People can’t be bothered to attend such classes. I’ve even heard of a proposal amongst Catechists that they want to request from the bishop to increase the age for Confirmation by 2 years so that kids will be forced to attend catechism. It is indeed sad that we have to blackmail people by holding the Sacraments hostage just so they can become well catechized. But if we don’t do it that way, they don’t show up. I teach highschool catechism and this year I do not have any students. While I think its a great practice in the East to have all the Sacraments of Initiation given at the same time for children and infants, I fear that we may never see the kids in class at all if they are not preparing for First Communion and Confirmation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top