I agree. They are. But they were not filled with the Holy Spirit from the womb. That being the case, they are in an entirely different class than John the Baptist. He is unique, as the greatest of the prophets. Since he is unique I think that comparing us to him is not necessarily a good way to make a theological arguement.
A good point has been raised Michael. The attitude I see amongst many Eastern Christians on the Web and in real life is that of East = Good, West = Bad. I find this interesting considering the fact that Eastern Christians are always demanding that Western Christians respect the unique Eastern practices. The same courtesy is often not extended to the West.Oooh!
Harsh.
But they are not filled with the Holy Spirit from the womb? Are we not all created in God’s image. So Eastern are, but Western are not? What is this world coming to? They are in an entirely different class than John the Baptist? Explain to me what class is, St. John the Baptist in? Can you tell me “what class” was Jesus in?
Calm down. The world is not ending. What I was saying is that, no babies are NOT filled with the Holy Spirit from the womb. I know this hard for you to hear but it is in baptism and confirmation that we recieve the Holy Spirit. This is not an East vs. West issue. No babies are born filled with the Holy Spirit except St. John the Baptist, Mary, and Jesus. So, yes that puts them in a different class.
Okay, but to my knowledge, no one (infants included) is permitted to receive the Body and Blood of Christ until they receive the Holy Spirit through baptism and chrismation/confirmation. When this happens, I imagine that infants are every bit as aware of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist as St John the Bastist was of Christ’s presence in Mary’s womb. No?
No. They are not as aware.
People do not need to intellectually assent to salvation through the life-giving Trinity in order to be fully aware of His presence. Read Mark 5:1-20. The demons are fully aware of Christ’s presence and they don’t intellectually assent to salvation. Christ obviously speaks to hearts and souls, and unless I missed a meeting, even infants have those. If He was going for intellectual understanding, He wouldn’t have spoken in so many riddles and parables. He communed the apostles first and said they would understand what He was saying later, when he sent them the Holy Spirit. Chrismated children have the Holy Spirit. They have all the understanding they need.
Yes.
Nope - different requirements in terms of mental capacity for different sacraments. Even Eastern Catholics and Orthodox wouldn’t insist that babies should receive the sacraments of penance, marriage or Holy Orders, would they? We simply place Holy Communion in a group which requires a certain level of intellectual maturity and assent, as do the above three. And we DON’T place baptism in that same category.
Babies do not talk and they have not committed actual sin.
would that not be illegal?
Seminary would be difficult for a baby.
That is what the baptists say about baptism.
Actually the filioque was an addition…the Eastern Church did not take it out.
I cannot agree with this. This statement also leads to the statement that Eastern Churches don’t have Eucharistic Adoration. In fact some of the Eastern Catholic Churches do imitate the Latin practice or adapt it. However, I would say even those that don’t have Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament and Benediciton or 40 Hours devotion, still have Eucharistic Adoration, although in a form not familair to the Latin Church. In the Russian Tradition in order to receive Communion one is expected to:
Mickey,
I think somewhere on this thread, someone mentioned going to a a Catholic School which was Latin, where the children who were Eastern were able to receive Eucharist during school Mass while their Western peers were not because they had not reached that stage in their catechesis.
Diversity has its good points. 
I don’t think that anyone has been asserting this kind of dichotomy on this thread. If anything, they have been conscientious enough to say that they are not saying one is “better” than the other, or that one is “good” and the “other” bad. The OP himself is simply trying to understand the difference, and he does find that he likes one approach better than the other. I think that your comment here misses the mark at least as far as this thread is concerned. You may find that attitude elsewhere, but take it up there.
I understand what you are saying (I received first communion at age 8 and was confirmed in the eigth grade as a Latin Catholic).
Am I mistaken or is the Eucharist more than simply a “very impotant” or “high point” of the Mass?Also, while the Eucharist is very important, it is not the only part of worship in the Mass. It is the high point, but not being able to receive would not mean that they were unable to participate fully in the liturgy otherwise. Don’t despair of the difference between East and West.
God Bless,
Rosemary
I have not decided that I “like” one approach over the other, I’m just struggling to understand the advantage–if any–of excluding our children from the Eucharist.
Receiving Communion is not the whole point of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The re-presentation of the sacrifice, us being at the Calvary while Jesus dies to wash away the sins of the world is the point of the Mass. The precept of the Church says to attend Mass every Sunday, while we have the obligation of receiving communion only once a year during the Easter season.