Different rules for different Catholics?

[Critter]

The Eastern Churches have their own Canon Law.

I see.

In that case–and please believe me when I say that I mean no disrespect when I say this–but, why in the world would anyone choose to raise their children in the Latin Rite, where they will be excluded from the Blessed Sacrament, when they could raise them in the equally-valid Byzantine Rite where, from the day of their baptism and chrismation (as early as a week after their birth!), they will be permitted to receive the Blessed Sacrament?

 

[LilyM]

I see.

In that case–and please believe me when I say that I mean no disrespect when I say this–but, why in the world would anyone choose to raise their children in the Latin Rite, where they will be excluded from the Blessed Sacrament, when they could raise them in the equally-valid Byzantine Rite where, from the day of their baptism and chrismation (as early as a week after their birth!), they will be permitted to receive the Blessed Sacrament?

Of course you mean disrespect, when it boils down to it - we Latins are the big bad ogres denying our poor babies the sacraments for which they are doubtless longing. By the way, how many two-year-olds have voluntarily said to you that they really really want Communion lately?

With all respect to you your question is like saying ‘why would anyone want to be in the Latin rite when their priests are denied the benefits of the sacrament of marriage which Eastern Catholic priests have’.

The simple answer is that there are advantages and disadvantages to communing and chrismating children as there are to married v universally celibate priests. It’s a matter of preference, not of one way being intrinsically better, and if one prefers the Eastern way one is welcome to join the Eastern Catholic Churches and have one’s preferences catered for.

And there certainly are disadvantages of communing and chrismating children. They have little to no appreciation of the sacraments - one has to wonder how much spiritual benefit they actually receive from them. Even being confirmed as a teenager, as I was, I know full well I didn’t really appreciate my confirmation or feel its effects until my reversion two years ago in my thirties!

 

[Deacon_Lance]

LilyM,

By the way, how many two-year-olds have voluntarily said to you that they really really want Communion lately?

Attend an Eastern Liturgy and you may be suprised at the cries of littles saying it is time to get Jesus now! Nothing, and I mean nothing, in my ministry has been more edifying than to commune a infant in the arms of its mother or toddler whom I have to squat down to commune.

And there certainly are disadvantages of communing and chrismating children. They have little to no appreciation of the sacraments - one has to wonder how much spiritual benefit they actually receive from them.

There is no disadvantage to communing infants. From the Instruction for Applying the Liturgical Prescriptions of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches:

Finally, the administration of the Divine Eucharist to infant neophytes is not limited to only the moment of the celebration of Initiation. **Eucharist is the Bread of life, and infants need to be nourished constantly, from then on, to grow spiritually. **The method of their participation in the Eucharist corresponds to their capacity: they will initially be different from the adults, inevitably less aware and not very rational, but they will progressively develop, through the grace and pedagogy of the sacrament, to grow until “mature manhood to the extent of the full stature of Christ” (cf. Eph. 4:13). The sacrament is always a gift which operates efficiently, in different ways just as every person is different.

Fr. Deacon Lance

 

[jimmy]

The simple answer is that there are advantages and disadvantages to communing and chrismating children as there are to married v universally celibate priests. It’s a matter of preference, not of one way being intrinsically better, and if one prefers the Eastern way one is welcome to join the Eastern Catholic Churches and have one’s preferences catered for.

And there certainly are disadvantages of communing and chrismating children. They have little to no appreciation of the sacraments - one has to wonder how much spiritual benefit they actually receive from them. Even being confirmed as a teenager, as I was, I know full well I didn’t really appreciate my confirmation or feel its effects until my reversion two years ago in my thirties!

So I guess we should stop baptizing infants because they don’t know what is happening and they can’t appreciate it. The fact is that there are no disadvantages to an infant recieving the Eucharist. It is irrelevant whether he has intellectual knowledge of what he is recieving. Truth and knowledge of God are far deeper than the intellect.

Of course you mean disrespect, when it boils down to it - we Latins are the big bad ogres denying our poor babies the sacraments for which they are doubtless longing. By the way, how many two-year-olds have voluntarily said to you that they really really want Communion lately?

With all respect to you your question is like saying ‘why would anyone want to be in the Latin rite when their priests are denied the benefits of the sacrament of marriage which Eastern Catholic priests have’.

Fr Deacon Lance gives good info for the first paragraph but really it is irrelevant whether any infant has requested it. The fact is that infants don’t request the sacrament of baptism either but Latins are strongly urged to have their children baptized as soon as possible.

The question of married priests is different. The reception of the Eucharist is a necessary part of being part of the Church. The priesthood and marriage are both vocations. They are both callings of life. The Eucharist is not a vocation. It is the source of life. It is the tree of life.

 

[Critter]

Of course you mean disrespect, when it boils down to it - we Latins are the big bad ogres denying our poor babies the sacraments for which they are doubtless longing.

I am not here to fight with anyone; I am here to learn. I do not appreciate the sarcasm.

With all respect to you your question is like saying ‘why would anyone want to be in the Latin rite when their priests are denied the benefits of the sacrament of marriage which Eastern Catholic priests have’.

Yes, that is another question I have, but I’d prefer to keep it on the topic of the Eucharist for now.

 

[LilyM]

So I guess we should stop baptizing infants because they don’t know what is happening and they can’t appreciate it. The fact is that there are no disadvantages to an infant recieving the Eucharist. It is irrelevant whether he has intellectual knowledge of what he is recieving. Truth and knowledge of God are far deeper than the intellect.

Fr Deacon Lance gives good info for the first paragraph but really it is irrelevant whether any infant has requested it. The fact is that infants don’t request the sacrament of baptism either but Latins are strongly urged to have their children baptized as soon as possible.

The question of married priests is different. The reception of the Eucharist is a necessary part of being part of the Church. The priesthood and marriage are both vocations. They are both callings of life. The Eucharist is not a vocation. It is the source of life. It is the tree of life.

Baptism is an entirely different matter as well - the parents are able to make the promises and fulfil the obligations required by the sacrament on behalf of the infant. In fact parents are usually well instructed as to what is required of THEM once their child is baptised. It’s not something that happens to the child alone.

No parent or sponsor, however, can receive Communion or the grace thereof on behalf of the child. The value it has for the child is entirely dependent on that child’s own understanding. And that understanding, for a two-year-old, is necessarily extremely limited.

Of course a two-year old can recognise that Communion is Jesus, and that in some way they receive Him when they receive Communion, but of course there’s a lot more nuance to the sacrament than that! A lot more that, in my humble opinion and that of the Latin Rite Church, it may be best for a child to be instructed in about it before it is received.

Note that Jesus gave the Last Supper only to adult disciples, no children being present or communing. I believe this has some significance, at least in a limited way.

Now I freely admit that there are all the disadvantages previous posters have mentioned in leaving communion for a later age, and all the advantages mentioned in communing infants. However, to say there are no disadvantages in communing infants is a little naive. At an age when children can’t even appreciate the value of eating vegetables as opposed to cookies and chocolate, how can many of them possibly have a proper appreciation of the value of receiving Our Lord? Many adults even don’t, and I dare say I am one of them.

Again, I don’t say this to dismiss the practice of communing infants, and I defend, as Rome does, the right of our Eastern brothers to do so. But just as it is inappropriate for me to insist that Easterners use unleavened wafers for communion, neither should they insist that we commune and chrismate infants. There is room enough in Christ’s church for both practices. And let whoever feels strongly enough about the practice find the Church or Rite which fulfils their desires and needs.

God bless

 

[Brendan]

. The value it has for the child is entirely dependent on that child’s own understanding. And that understanding, for a two-year-old, is necessarily extremely limited.

Lily,

I am a Latin and what you stated here is incredibly wrong from the Latin perspective as well.

The value of the Eucharist is dependant upon nothing, as it is Christ Himself.

It certainly does not depend on our ability to percieve, because, since the object of understanding, Christ, is infintite, the understanding of the most learned scholars is no closer than that of the most newborn babe.

Perhaps you ment the Grace, but even then, you err. The Grace recieved is depends only upon the state of those who are to recieve it.

If one is in sin, the Grace is lessened, or even no Grace at all for those in Mortal Sin.

But for those is a perfected State of Grace, which would include a Baptized infant, the Grace is itself infinite.

 

[jimmy]

Baptism is an entirely different matter as well - the parents are able to make the promises and fulfil the obligations required by the sacrament on behalf of the infant. In fact parents are usually well instructed as to what is required of THEM once their child is baptised. It’s not something that happens to the child alone.

No parent or sponsor, however, can receive Communion or the grace thereof on behalf of the child. The value it has for the child is entirely dependent on that child’s own understanding. And that understanding, for a two-year-old, is necessarily extremely limited.

Intellectual understanding means absolutely nothing. It does not affect how someone recieves the sacrament. The fact is that in Baptism we recieve the Holy Spirit. The parents are completely irrelevant. They do not recieve the Holy Spirit for the child. Just like with the Eucharist, the child is the one who recieves the Grace, not the parents. The fact is that from the beginning the Church did not view it from an intellectual approach. That is why it is called a mystery(musterion in Greek and razza in Syriac). They gave the sacrament to children as soon as they were baptized and chrismated.

A parent can take the vows to raise their children as Christians even if the child doesn’t recieve baptism. But the essence of the Sacrament is the reception of the Holy Spirit. Whether the child understands it or not and whether the parents take a vow to teach their children the faith does not affect it. Similarly whether a child understands what he is recieving in the Eucharist or not doesn’t affect whether he actually recieves the Holy Spirit(Grace) or not or how it affects him.

Of course a two-year old can recognise that Communion is Jesus, and that in some way they receive Him when they receive Communion, but of course there’s a lot more nuance to the sacrament than that! A lot more that, in my humble opinion and that of the Latin Rite Church, it may be best for a child to be instructed in about it before it is received.

Can a mentally retarded person not know God or recieve salvation because they can’t intellectuallize God? Yes he can. You do not need to be a theologian to recieve the Eucharist. This brings up the main problem as I see it. The problem is that the west sees the relationship which man has with God as an intellectual relationship whereas the east sees it more as an orientation of the heart. The theologian is he who knows a lot of philosophy and has read the saints and can tell you a lot about the doctrines of the Church. But in the east Evagrios sums it up nicely when he says, ‘he who prays truely is a theologian and he who is a theologian prays truely.’ And the Syriac (and Greek) fathers would agree with this statement.

Note that Jesus gave the Last Supper only to adult disciples, no children being present or communing. I believe this has some significance, at least in a limited way.

And He only gave it to men as well. Lily, do you recieve the Eucharist?

Now I freely admit that there are all the disadvantages previous posters have mentioned in leaving communion for a later age, and all the advantages mentioned in communing infants. However, to say there are no disadvantages in communing infants is a little naive. At an age when children can’t even appreciate the value of eating vegetables as opposed to cookies and chocolate, how can many of them possibly have a proper appreciation of the value of receiving Our Lord? Many adults even don’t, and I dare say I am one of them.

Delaying the reception of the Eucharist will not solve this problem just like delaying baptism wouldn’t solve any problems.

Again, I don’t say this to dismiss the practice of communing infants, and I defend, as Rome does, the right of our Eastern brothers to do so. But just as it is inappropriate for me to insist that Easterners use unleavened wafers for communion, neither should they insist that we commune and chrismate infants. There is room enough in Christ’s church for both practices. And let whoever feels strongly enough about the practice find the Church or Rite which fulfils their desires and needs.

God bless

I don’t insist that the west do anything. I am simply defending the eastern perspective.

 

[Fuerza]

Guys,

Take it easy on LilyM. She is merely defending the Latin Rite, which even I have noticed has become acceptable to mock and insult for some reason. Our traditions are just as beautiful and valuable as those of the East.

 

[bpbasilphx]

And that understanding, for a two-year-old, is necessarily extremely limited.

And for us mortals, our undersanding is ALWAYS limited, regardless of our age. It’s folly to think otherwise.

 

[kitkatty]

The big deal is that we’re talking about excluding *some *of our children from the Body and Blood of Christ.

I’m sorry that’s not a big deal to you, but it is to me. Christ himself said “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven." By excluding our children from receiving the Eucharist, we are doing the exact opposite of what Christ told us to do.

If allowing their infants to receive the Blessed Sacrament is good for the Eastern Catholics, why isn’t it good for the Western Catholics?

Well Critter you just expressed the Eastern Catholic reasoning for giving all the sacraments of initiation in infancy fairly well, that `s pretty much how we see it. But since you are a Latin you will have to be obedient to and abide by the discipline of the Latin Church on this. Neither is wrong, just different.

 

[kitkatty]

Lily,

I am a Latin and what you stated here is incredibly wrong from the Latin perspective as well.

The value of the Eucharist is dependant upon nothing, as it is Christ Himself.

It certainly does not depend on our ability to percieve, because, since the object of understanding, Christ, is infintite, the understanding of the most learned scholars is no closer than that of the most newborn babe.

Perhaps you ment the Grace, but even then, you err. The Grace recieved is depends only upon the state of those who are to recieve it.

If one is in sin, the Grace is lessened, or even no Grace at all for those in Mortal Sin.

But for those is a perfected State of Grace, which would include a Baptized infant, the Grace is itself infinite.

I agree totally Brendan, very well put. Lilly, your baby might not be able to ask for food, would you deny feeding the baby? Then why deny the grace that comes from precious spiritual food.? Yes, these kids do receive grace, no they may not understand they are getting it just like they don`t understand the nutrients in the food you feed them but their bodies still receive the necessary nutrition. Their souls receive necessary grace and no I am not criticicising the Latin way, as you said there is room for both.

 

[Brendan]

Guys,

Take it easy on LilyM. She is merely defending the Latin Rite, which even I have noticed has become acceptable to mock and insult for some reason. Our traditions are just as beautiful and valuable as those of the East.

Furerza,

I AM a Latin, and Lily was mistaken in her LATIN Sacramental theology.

I’m all for defending Latin traditions, but she has to use actually real theology to do it

 

[LilyM]

Lily,

I am a Latin and what you stated here is incredibly wrong from the Latin perspective as well.

The value of the Eucharist is dependant upon nothing, as it is Christ Himself.

It certainly does not depend on our ability to percieve, because, since the object of understanding, Christ, is infintite, the understanding of the most learned scholars is no closer than that of the most newborn babe.

Perhaps you ment the Grace, but even then, you err. The Grace recieved is depends only upon the state of those who are to recieve it.

If one is in sin, the Grace is lessened, or even no Grace at all for those in Mortal Sin.

But for those is a perfected State of Grace, which would include a Baptized infant, the Grace is itself infinite.

Certainly on reflection I was very wrong to say the value of the Eucharist (note - only its value for the recepient, which is a different thing from the perfect and infinite value it inherently possesses) is ‘entirely’ dependent on the understanding of the person receiving it.

But we must concede that the understanding, as well as the state of grace, of the person receiving, is a factor when it comes to the Eucharist. Otherwise why did St Paul place so much emphasis on DISCERNING the Body and Blood when he wrote about how we must receive it worthily? Why mention discernment if understanding plays no part?

Perhaps it is different from some other sacraments in this. On the other hand it ISN’T different from marriage, where both parties must understand what they are entering into for the sacrament to take effect.

The Eucharist isn’t only to be likened to a mother feeding her baby, since a mother doesn’t literally feed her baby with her own flesh in order to make the baby literally a member of her body. The food isn’t a source of literal communion between mother and baby.

Let’s examine another and equally appropriate analogy for the Eucharist - the consummation of a marriage. Christ is often enough referred to as the bridegroom and the Eucharist as His wedding feast. Since husband and wife really become one flesh by the act of the marital embrace, it is an apt analogy. Now infants certainly aren’t considered to be appropriate subjects for marriage, are they? So it makes sense that they’re not necessarily entirely adapted to take the place of the bride at the wedding feast either.

A disclaimer here - these are my thoughts, of course, and not the official mind of the Church. I am muddling my way through an issue which in all honesty I haven’t given a lot of serious thought. Again I don’t deny Eastern Catholics the right to commune and chrismate infants. I do feel the Latin Rite has wrongly been made something of an ogre of in this thread though, and am attempting in a stumbling way to explore possible reasons behind Latin practices.

 

[Brendan]

I agree totally Brendan, very well put. Lilly, your baby might not be able to ask for food, would you deny feeding the baby? Then why deny the grace that comes from precious spiritual food.?

Now we can defend Sacramental Theology here. The Baby has not lost any of the Infinite Sacramental Grace that was given it at Baptism. In many ways, it is much like the chick inside an egg. One does not need to add more food inside the egg, it was given sufficently at it’s laying.

It is only when the food is lacking that the chick comes out and is fed by more (Supra) Substantial food.

As mentioned above, there are different views. Latins tend to emphasize the sufficencies of Grace of Baptism, that the child is fed by the Font of Living Water welling up within it. The Eastern theology tends to emphasize the continual necessity of the Spiritual Food in the Eucharist.

Neither is wrong, just different emphasis.

I see that as well in the sacramentals used on Sunday. For Latins, it is Holy Water, a rememberence of our Baptism. For the East, it is Holy Bread, the antidoron, a rememberence of the Eucharist.

 

[catherineajt]

Of course you mean disrespect, when it boils down to it - we Latins are the big bad ogres denying our poor babies the sacraments for which they are doubtless longing. By the way, how many two-year-olds have voluntarily said to you that they really really want Communion lately?

I can’t speak for two year olds, but i know my three year old looks forward to Communion and has never abused the Sacrament. He often speaks of “getting Jesus” from Father, and for him, it is the highlight of Divine Liturgy.

And there certainly are disadvantages of communing and chrismating children. They have little to no appreciation of the sacraments - one has to wonder how much spiritual benefit they actually receive from them. Even being confirmed as a teenager, as I was, I know full well I didn’t really appreciate my confirmation or feel its effects until my reversion two years ago in my thirties!**I think children appreciate spirituality on a deeper level than most adults appreciate. I have noticed my very young toddler, when I say the Haily Mary with him before bed, or sing a hymn to the Theotokos, look up at the ceiling with a look of pure wonder and joy. Perhaps they are more in tune with the heavenly hosts than we, superior adults, would like to admit.

Think of it this way. A developmentally disabled adult, who is mentally at the level of, say, a five year old. Chronologically, he is of age in the Latin Church to receive Communion. Are you going to deny him the Eucharist, simply because you “think” he cannot appreciate it in terms he can describe? This is why the Eastern Church, to me, represents the fullness of the faith. Reception of the Eucharist is not limited by one’s understanding of it. We can never fully understand God or the Transubstantiation, because of our own limitation as human beings. But through grace and mercy, God grants us this incredible gift to help us through life.**

 

[Critter]

But we must concede that the understanding, as well as the state of grace, of the person receiving, is a factor when it comes to the Eucharist. Otherwise why did St Paul place so much emphasis on DISCERNING the Body and Blood when he wrote about how we must receive it worthily? Why mention discernment if understanding plays no part?

If the six month old fetus who would become known as St. John the Baptist could recognize our Lord in the womb, why can’t an infant recognize or “discern” the Body and Blood of Christ? Who is to say that they don’t recognize Him who tells us to allow the children to come to Him? Often times children “discern” things better than we adults who forget much as we grow older, like say, how to trust.

Why assume that our intellectual understanding outweighs an infant’s spiritual understanding?

 

[Hesychios]

The Eastern Churches have their own Canon Law.

Yes.

Since October of 1990AD

 

[Mickey]

Of course you mean disrespect, when it boils down to it - we Latins are the big bad ogres denying our poor babies the sacraments for which they are doubtless longing. By the way, how many two-year-olds have voluntarily said to you that they really really want Communion lately?

And there certainly are disadvantages of communing and chrismating children. They have little to no appreciation of the sacraments - one has to wonder how much spiritual benefit they actually receive from them. Even being confirmed as a teenager, as I was, I know full well I didn’t really appreciate my confirmation or feel its effects until my reversion two years ago in my thirties!

My two year old waits with excitement and antipation to receive the Eucharist every week. She knows the exact moment in the Divine Liturgy when it is time to approach. She opens her mouth as the priest is dipping the spoon into the chalice. She also kisses Icons, does prostrations when we pray as a family, kisses the priest’s hand when we ask for a blessing, etc., etc.,etc…

There are no disadvantages to communing and chrismating children. Jesus Christ said, “Let the little chlidren come to me”.

 

[East_and_West]

Then why not remove the filioque altogether and take a step toward healing the tragic and sinful division that exists between the Eastern and Western Church?

Because the filioque is very prominent in the Western Understanding of the Trinity and is an important part of our theology.