Different rules for different Catholics?

[East_and_West]

Yes.

Since October of 1990AD

A dark day in history. … kidding

 

[East_and_West]

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?

This six month old fetus was also filled with the Holy Spirit from the womb. This was a very special six month old fetus. Not the norm.

 

[Deacon_Lance]

This six month old fetus was also filled with the Holy Spirit from the womb. This was a very special six month old fetus. Not the norm.

Eastern Catholic babies baptized and chrismated are filled with the Holy Spirit.

Fr. Deacon Lance

 

[Filius99993]

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?

I think we’ve tried that already. It didn’t work.

 

[Algernon]

Yes.

Since October of 1990AD

Pardon my ignorance, but what happened in Oct 1990?

A

 

[jimmy]

Pardon my ignorance, but what happened in Oct 1990?

A

I am assuming that was when the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches was released. I think Hesychios was making a joke about the recentness of it.

 

[Allyson]

Latin rite catholics don’t do all 3 at the same time. Other rites do. What’s the big deal?

The idea behind waiting with the other 3 initiation sacraments is that children, until a certain age, aren’t capable of mortal sins because they aren’t aware. Once that age is reached they are eligible for 1st confession, communion, and in some cases confirmation. If children under the age die, they are baptised christians without mortal sin who should go to heaven. Once they are aware of mortal sins, we complete their initiation sacraments so they can take advantage of those sources of grace.

So at the most, the difference in the timing of the sacraments is a difference in belief in the culpability for children of thier sins. That’s not a major difference in the tenants of the faith.

Culpability has no relation to when the sacraments are given. The East simply chooses to make all new initiates fully initiated from the beginning - including infants - this is the more ancient tradition of the Church as far as I know. An emphasis on culpability misses the point of these sacraments. One misconception I know I was taught was that Confirmation was part of your maturation in the Church - hence why we received it at age 13, but this is flat out incorrect. I thought it was at the time and now know it to be wrong. About 100+ years ago, a Latin bishop switched the order from Baptism/Confirmation/Eucharist to Baptism/Eucharist/Confirmation. Now many Latin bishops are returning to the traditional and older order, which is more appropriate.

God Bless,
Rosemary

 

[Allyson]

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

Hello LilyM,

I have to respectfully disagree with you about the need to understand what is being received. The grace and nature of the sacrament act regaurdless of our ability to comprehend it. Sometimes we get confused about this point because in the Latin Rite we did not receive it until the age of 7, but there really is nothing intrinsic to the Sacrament that requires being able to understand it. Certainly as a child grows, he or she should be properly catechized on what is being received. In the Latin rite, it is the parents who bring their child to be baptized with the intention that the child will be raised Catholic, and in the East they do the same in bringing the infant to receive all three - Baptism, Confirmation, and then Eucharist - all for the same reason.

For another perspective of what might happen in the Latin Rite. I have a close friend who’s younger sister had a stroke due to meningitis at age 18 months. Two of the effects were 1) she is death and 2) she has about the intellectual capacity of 4-5 year old. She has a limited sign language vocabulary. At a certain point the parents arranged for her to receive Holy Communion. A teacher was brought in to work with her because of her disabilities, and she has received Holy Communion. She has not met the “age of reason” requirement because of the stroke. This was in no way an impediment to her full reception the the Eucharist and its grace. This helps illustrate, I think, that it is not necessary for the grace of the Eucharist or ANY sacrament that it be received only after some standard of reason is met.

I grew up Latin Catholic Church, and have translated in my adulthood to the Ruthenian Catholic Church (for reasons entirely unrelated to the discussion). I would not say that the Latin Rite does things in the wrong way at all. I do find though that how things are done has - at least in recent history - lead to some confusion about the nature of the sacraments (see my post above on Confirmation). That said, I find that it is quite appropriate for infants to receive all three at once, because there is nothing required of their reason. Grace operates in spite of reason.

God Bless,
Rosemary

 

[Allyson]

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.

There is no comparison or analogy here. (Forgive my simplification here.) There are Seven Sacraments - five of them are meant for everyone to receive. The grace of Marriage is meant for couple who wish to be married, and Ordination - for men who wish to be ordained. Both of these do involve full soundness of mind and the proper intention. Confession does too as well as full repentance (also Last Rites as far as possible since it involves confession). The grace of the Sacraments of Initiation do not require the awareness of the “age a reason.” Seven year olds aren’t appropriate subjects for marriage either. Being a bride at the wedding feast just does not require what you propose. It does not require the same level of understanding from one’s self. Perhaps it could be said that the grace of the sacrament is sufficient to bring supernatural understanding. Especially for the infant who does not make it to childhood after receiving all the sacraments.

God Bless,
Rosemary

 

[FiremanFrank]

As a non-Catholic (but one who is interested in learning more)…

Critter,

For a proper course of direction as it regards a reply to your questions, it appears that no one here has asked you the most important question of all:

Critter, what exactly is your faith background (past and present), if any?

This will provide us with a much needed “starting place” from which to start explaining things to you.

I also see that you are a new member, and that thus far, you’ve stated that you’re not Catholic. Given your statement below …

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.

… your defense regarding the reception of the Holy Eucharist (though quite admirable) indicates only one of three distinct possibilities. Such a person is either:

• a Roman Catholic
• an Eastern Catholic
• an Orthodox
  Remembering your former remark that your “not Catholic”, then you must be Orthodox.

 

[Deacon_Lance]

Remembering your former remark that your “not Catholic”, then you must be Orthodox.

Not necessarily. Some Anglicans’ and Lutherans’ beliefs about the Eucharist come very close to Catholic belief or are identical to Catholic belief which is why they are seeking to join themselves to her.

Fr. Deacon Lance

 

[FiremanFrank]

Not necessarily. Some Anglicans’ and Lutherans’ beliefs about the Eucharist come very close to Catholic belief or are identical to Catholic belief which is why they are seeking to join themselves to her.

Fr. Deacon Lance

I respectfully understand your thoughts on that remark, but I have concluded differently.

Please “read between the lines” dear Fr. Deacon …

 

[Critter]

Critter,

For a proper course of direction as it regards a reply to your questions, it appears that no one here has asked you the most important question of all:

Critter, what exactly is your faith background (past and present), if any?

This will provide us with a much needed “starting place” from which to start explaining things to you.

I also see that you are a new member, and that thus far, you’ve stated that you’re not Catholic. Given your statement below …

… your defense regarding the reception of the Holy Eucharist (though quite admirable) indicates only one of three distinct possibilities. Such a person is either:

• a Roman Catholic
• an Eastern Catholic
• an Orthodox
  Remembering your former remark that your “not Catholic”, then you must be Orthodox.

For whatever it’s worth, I was raised Baptist, and have attended a Luthern (LCMS) church for the past seven years.

The Real Presence of Christ’s Body and Blood is of *utmost *importance to me. The emphasis that the Catholic Church places on the Eucharist is what attracted me to it in the first place.

I’m now simply wondering whether the Latin Rite Church places as much emphasis on the Eucharist as the Eastern Rite Church apparently does, and which, therefore, would be the preferable Rite in which to raise my children.

If there are no more lines you’d like to read between, I’d appreciate some clarity and guidance on the subject.
Thank you very much.

 

[Cari]

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.

Thank you. As a Latin Rite Catholic who never gave much thought to the differences between rites, this thread has gotten me thinking. Your analogy was to the point, clear, and very helpful.

 

[Woodstock]

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.

This goes back to the difference in how the east and west understand original sin. The east believes that original sin corrupted the world, and we are therefore all born into and live in the corrupted world. Since we continue to live in and be influenced by the corrupted world after our baptisms and chrismations, we nourish our children with the presence of the Lord right from the start. Your analogy to the chick who needs more and better food once born into this corrupted world is very appropriate from an Eastern standpoint.

From a Latin standpoint, saying that the child has a sufficient supply of grace does not make sense. The Latins have an understanding of a treasury of merits in which an abundance of grace is stored up and applied by God to others. Latin theology would not support someone saying, “We have enough grace here. More grace wouldn’t make any difference. We’ve already got enough Jesus at home. No, thanks.”

The Latins respect the Eucharist and out of that respect limit the reception to those who understand the gravity of the Eucharist and who can make an assent to the reception of God into their lives. It’s gone off the tracks in the last few decades with how many adults are not understanding the Eucharist and are receiving in ignorance of their sinfulness, or worse, in defiance of it. The current situation has made many wonder why rainbow sashers are receiving in some places but their angelic five year olds who understand the Eucharist with their hearts and souls are unable. So they look at the Eastern Catholic Churches, then at their own history, and see the injustice.

I don’t agree with the conclusions the Latin theology draws, but I have no doubt that it is springing from a respect for the Eucharist. I would even argue that the Eucharist is treated with more banality in the East than in the West. The West has Eucharistic Adoration, and entire orders of nuns devoted to it. In the East, the Eucharist is never removed from the context of the Liturgy. While of great solemnity and importance and well respected, it doesn’t rise to the level of individual distinction it does in the West.

Most Latin Catholics who come to my church to visit want to know where the tabernacle is, and they go down on their knees out of respect for the Eucharistic Lord. The East doesn’t understand viewing the Eucharist in isolation and sees it more as a source of food, common table bread that through the whole of the Liturgy becomes spiritual food and drink. Something we feed our children and ourselves as sustenance and nourishment for our faith journeys. It’s a very different mindset.

I think I remember someone earlier saying we have the same theology in the Eastern Catholic Churches as the Roman Catholic Church. Forgive me if it was a different thread. I’ve been away for days and am trying to catch up. The Churches do have a different theology. The way we understand the most basic things is very different. You know the phrase, “It’s all Greek to me!”? That’s how it can be at times. If you are deciding between the Eastern and Western Catholic Churches, I recommend you spend time in each, talking to the parishioners and living the life and praying the prayers. By living it and learning about it, you’ll start to realize how the East and West are coming from very different angles and how the difference in theology affects the disciplines and practices of each.

 

[FiremanFrank]

For whatever it’s worth, I was raised Baptist, and have attended a Luthern (LCMS) church for the past seven years.

The Real Presence of Christ’s Body and Blood is of *utmost *importance to me. The emphasis that the Catholic Church places on the Eucharist is what attracted me to it in the first place.

I’m now simply wondering whether the Latin Rite Church places as much emphasis on the Eucharist as the Eastern Rite Church apparently does, and which, therefore, would be the preferable Rite in which to raise my children.

If there are no more lines you’d like to read between, I’d appreciate some clarity and guidance on the subject.
Thank you very much.

LOL

I sensed the Baptist in you, and Deacon Lance felt the Lutheran aspect of your faith. I guess it’s true, “Two heads are better than one”

Thanks for the clarification Critter.

Anyways (whether you think so or not) your former beliefs DO in fact play a part on where you’re coming from with your questions (it’s only natural). So I wasn’t being frivolous in my thoughts in that regarded.

God has permitted me to have extensive/intensive exposure to non-Catholic Christians over the past 12 years, so I’ve acquired a lot of knowledge about what is on their minds.

To Your Question …

I’m getting ready for a 24 hr shift at the firehouse right now, so my answer to you will have to be brief (hoping everyone prays that my tour is safe/quiet).

*** You are asking which Rite would be preferable to raise your children in, the Latin Rite Catholic or the Eastern Rite Catholic.***

The answer is this:

Seeing how both Catholic Rires have to be EQUALLY devout in their love/respect for the Eucharist (a spiritual requirement set forth by God Himself for the Eucharist), then your choice simply reduces itself to which tradition most appeals to YOUR type of spirituality and that of your family.

Eastern Catholics have a more “old school” type of worship (which I love and which is why I changed my Rite to that of the Eastern Catholic Church), and the Latin Catholics primary form of worship is the Novus Ordo Mass (beautiful, but highly susceptible to Liturgical abuse if you live in an area which is “liberal” in nature … not a problem for those worshiping in the Eastern Catholic Liturgy).

Experience the Liturgy of both Rites, and see which one tugs most at you and your family’s spiritual heart.

Also, remember that no matter which Catholic Rite you eventually choose to worship in … that you can worship in EITHER Rite as you wish.

Good Luck!

 

[Critter]

I sensed the Baptist in you

Touché!

To Your Question …

I’m getting ready for a 24 hr shift at the firehouse right now, so my answer to you will have to be brief (hoping everyone prays that my tour is safe/quiet).

You are asking which Rite would be preferable to raise your children in, the Latin Rite Catholic or the Eastern Rite Catholic.

The answer is this:

Seeing how both Catholic Rires have to be EQUALLY devout in their love/respect for the Eucharist (a spiritual requirement set forth by God Himself for the Eucharist), then your choice simply reduces itself to which tradition most appeals to YOUR type of spirituality and that of your family.

Eastern Catholics have a more “old school” type of worship (which I love and which is why I changed my Rite to that of the Eastern Catholic Church), and the Latin Catholics primary form of worship is the Novus Ordo Mass (beautiful, but highly susceptible to Liturgical abuse if you live in an area which is “liberal” in nature … not a problem for those worshiping in the Eastern Catholic Liturgy).

Experience the Liturgy of both Rites, and see which one tugs most at you and your family’s spiritual heart.

Also, remember that no matter which Catholic Rite you eventually choose to worship in … that you can worship in EITHER Rite as you wish.

Good Luck!

Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut, Frank.
The last line of your comment really touches on my primary concern: If my wife and I were to be received into the Catholic Church, we *could *worship in either rite…but our children couldn’t.

I’d be curious to know (and have asked on a previous post) why Catholics with young children would choose to worship according to a rite (the Latin Rite) that would exclude those children from receiving the Eucharist.

 

[planter654]

Touché!

Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut, Frank.
The last line of your comment really touches on my primary concern: If my wife and I were to be received into the Catholic Church, we *could *worship in either rite…but our children couldn’t.

I’d be curious to know (and have asked on a previous post) why Catholics with young children would choose to worship according to a rite (the Latin Rite) that would exclude those children from receiving the Eucharist.

Latin not Latin what is this all about? Jesus Christ and the Apostles did not preach to just Latins or what ever language did they. If our language was important to Jesus, then we would all be out of luck in obtainning salvation? What did Jesus speak in? Did Jesus have different rules for different languages. Is there different commandments for different languages? This is all confusing!

Gentles means gentles, all who do not believe or accept the word of God----period!

God Bless, no disrespect.

 

[Critter]

Latin not Latin what is this all about? Jesus Christ and the Apostles did not preach to just Latins or what ever language did they. If our language was important to Jesus, then we would all be out of luck in obtainning salvation? What did Jesus speak in? Did Jesus have different rules for different languages. Is there different commandments for different languages? This is all confusing!

Gentles means gentles, all who do not believe or accept the word of God----period!

God Bless, no disrespect.

This has nothing to do with language.

When I refer to “Latin Rite” I’m talking about the liturgies, customs, and practices associated with the Western Canon Law, as distinguished from those of the Eastern (Byzantine) Catholic Church.

I appologize if I was unclear.

 

[Hesychios]

Of course you mean disrespect, when it boils down to it - we Latins are the big bad ogres denying our poor babies…

Oooh!

Harsh.