M
Mickey
Guest
Man! Why can’t I explain these things as eloquently as you?
- Status
S
SiempreFiel
Guest
The West understands the Sacrament of Reconciliation as “a positive and loving experience” but we don’t forget that the principal effect of this sacrament is the healing of estrangement from God caused by one’s sins.
Does the East differ from this understanding of the Sacrament of Reconciliation?
M
Mickey
Guest
In Greek – the language in which the New Testament was written – the word for “sin” is “amartia,” which literally means “to miss the mark.” For Christians, the “mark” for which we strive is to live in communion with God, basing our lives and actions on the life and actions of Jesus Christ; hence, when we “miss this mark” we sin.
The Church Fathers further acknowledge that sin is a personal power or force that has usurped the government of the world as created by God and has tainted creation after the Fall of Adam. Jesus Christ took on our nature and entered into the world in order to deliver mankind, through His death and resurrection, from this force and its consequences, the chief of which is death.
oca.org/
The Church Fathers further acknowledge that sin is a personal power or force that has usurped the government of the world as created by God and has tainted creation after the Fall of Adam. Jesus Christ took on our nature and entered into the world in order to deliver mankind, through His death and resurrection, from this force and its consequences, the chief of which is death.
oca.org/
H
hasikelee
Guest
Are you familiar with the different disciplines within the Church?
A rule is not the same as a dogma. One can be changed, one cannot.
Does universal meant uniform or unified to you?
If you are married to someone, do you copy them exactly, awake at the same time, wear the same clothes, enjoy the same foods? Yet, if you each have your own favourite food, or bedtime routine, does that indicate you are not equal members of the marriage?
W
Woodstock
Guest
It’s the yellow bird. He tells me what to say. You should get one. Well worth the investment!Man! Why can’t I explain these things as eloquently as you?
M
Mickey
Guest
T
tdgesq
Guest
Here is why I have chosen it:
But although this law, sanctioned by the authority of God and of His Church, concerns all the faithful, it should be taught that it does not extend to those who on account of their tender age have not attained the use of reason. For these are not able to distinguish the Holy Eucharist from common and ordinary bread and cannot bring with them to this Sacrament piety and devotion. Furthermore (to extend the precept to them) would appear inconsistent with the ordinance of our Lord, for He said: Take and eat words which cannot apply to infants, who are evidently incapable of taking and eating.
In some places, it is true, an ancient practice prevailed of giving the Holy Eucharist even to infants; but, for the reasons already assigned, and for other reasons in keeping with Christian piety, this practice has been long discontinued by authority of the Church.
With regard to the age at which children should be given the holy mysteries, this the parents and confessor can best determine. To them it belongs to inquire and to ascertain from the children themselves whether they have some knowledge of this admirable Sacrament and whether they desire to receive it. Catechism of The Council of Trent.
I also agree with the theology of Thomas Aquinas that “from the fact of children being baptized, they are destined by the Church to the Eucharist; and just as they believe through the Church’s faith, so they desire the Eucharist through the Church’s intention, and, as a result, receive its reality.” newadvent.org/summa/4073.htm#3
In other words, children already receive the reality of the Eucharist through the intention of the Church, whether they consume the sacramental bread and wine or not.
C
Critter
Guest
107 posts in and I finally get an answer. Thank you, tdgesq!!!
So…that leads to another question:
Since the Church, according to the above quotation, clearly teaches that “it does not extend [the Eucharist] to those who on account of their tender age have not attained the use of reason,” why does it allow the Byzantine Rite churches to violate this rule?
2nd question. This is directed toward Orthodox Christians: Does this sort of ambiguity (where sacraments are administered differently to different people within different parishes in different places, etc) exist in the Orthodox Church?
A
a_pilgrim
Guest
There is no violation here of any rule that would apply to any of the Eastern Catholic Churches, Byzantine or otherwise. Let me clarify:
The Catholic Church, those faithful individuals who are in full communion with the See of Peter, is in fact a union of 23 separate Churches (the Latin Church, commonly referred to as the Roman Catholic Church - far and away the largest and best known of the Churches comprising the Catholic communion - and 22 separate Eastern Catholic Churches). Each of these 23 Churches enjoy the legal status known as “sui iuris” meaning “of their own law.” Each has as its head a single individual (in some cases a patriarch, in others a metropolitan archbishop; in the case of the Latin Church it’s the Pope himself).
In addition to being the leader of the Latin Church, the Pope, in his role as the successor of Peter, also serves as the pastoral shepherd of ALL Catholics, Latin and Eastern. This “dual role” that the Pope serves causes much confusion among the masses. It is commonly (and wrongly!) accepted that any “rule” enacted by the Latin Church (i.e. the Pope) must apply to all 23 Churches in the Catholic communion – this is grossly incorrect.
As I stated earlier, each of the 23 Churches that comprise Catholicism enjoys “sui iuris” status. Although each recognizes the Pope, *in his role as pastoral shepherd of all Catholics, *as the earthly head of Catholicism, only the Latin Church is bound by those “rules” established by him in his role as leader of the Latin Church. And, far and away, most of what he deals with on a day to day basis is specific to his sui iuris Church, the Latin Church.
Now, the “Church” that you refer to in the first sentence of your quote above is clearly the Latin Church, not the entire communion of Catholic Churches. This (Latin) Church does not “allow” the Eastern Catholics, Byzantine or otherwise, to “violate this rule,” as you say, quite simply because her rules don’t apply to the Eastern Catholic Churches. She simply has no say in when the Eastern Catholic Churches may commune their young.
Despite its overwhelming majority within the communion of Catholic Churches (all 22 Eastern Catholic Churches combined do not even come close to the size and magnitude of the Latin Church!), the Latin Church is not the yardstick by which Catholicism is to be measured (despite what the media may have you believe). Each of the 23 sui iuris Churches is equal in honor to the other 22. And the rules established by each of the 23 sui iuris Churches are just as valid – just as Catholic – as those of the others.
That’s what it means to be Catholic – unity, not uniformity!
C
Critter
Guest
Okay, so the Council of Trent, in other words, doesn’t apply to the Eastern Catholic churches. Got it.
So, tdgesq really didn’t answer my question after all, and we’re back to…
Given the choice between the two Rites, why have you Latin Rite Catholics chosen the one that prohibits young children from receiving the Eucharist?
L
LilyM
Guest
As I’ve said, I choose it because I feel the reasons for waiting to commune and chrismate are as cogent and persuasive as the reasons pro communing and chrismating infants. I can only conclude, from my own observation of lots of children (namely nieces and nephews) and my own experience, that even some of those who HAVE received these sacraments later were seriously not ready to do so, from an intellectual or any other standpoint. They could only possibly have been less ready if it had been done when they were even younger.
One issue which hasn’t been raised is that younger children in the Latin Rite, receiving in the manner we do (ie not spooned into the mouth but usually received in the hand or from the priest’s hand into the mouth, or simply presented the chalice and bringing it to our own mouths) present a vastly increased opportunity for dropping/spilling the Holy Mysteries, or for profaning them in other ways (spitting them out etc).
For that matter, if my priest is satisfied that it’s OK to chrismate and/or commune my baby or toddler, then it could be done, if that is what is desired. It’s not an absolute blanket ban as you seem to think.
More importantly, I do so because I trust the Holy Spirit’s guidance of the Magisterium on this matter, as I do on the issues of non-ordination of married men, on the forms of the Mass which the Latin Rite have prescribed, and on many other disciplinary issues.
These issues do not carry any sort of moral prescription or condemnation as dogma or doctrine do, but if, after consideration and consultation with my priest, it is seen fit to wait for communion and chrismation, then I am bound to obedience on this matter.
T
tdgesq
Guest
As explained below, it is not a discipline that applies to the ECC’s. Vatican II in Orientalium Ecclesiarum affirmed the right of the Eastern Churches to maintain their ancient sacramental traditions, which would include the communion of children.
No, what I quoted you was the Catechism of the Council of Trent issued under the authority of Pope Pius V. It sets forth the disciplinary rule in the RCC that children are not to commune until the age of reason.
The Council of Trent merely affirms what I think all Catholics regardless of rite believe, that sacramental reception of the Eucharist is unnecessary for the salvation of infants because, “having been regenerated by the laver of baptism, and being incorporated with Christ, they cannot, at that age, lose the grace which they have already acquired of being the sons of God.” 21st Session, Ch. IV.
I’m not sure you took away the point I was trying to convey from the Catechism of the Council of Trent. Here is the critical language: “For these [children] are not able to distinguish the Holy Eucharist from common and ordinary bread and cannot bring with them to this Sacrament piety and devotion.”
You have to be a little bit careful how you interpret this statement though. The Latins are very concerned about the possibility of an unworthy reception of the Eucharistic body and blood. It has much to do with the historical reverence our rite has practiced with respect to the Eucharistic elements. I think Woodstock did a good job of explaining it. In order to avoid any possibility of an unworthy reception, the RCC requires that the child reach the age of reason and that parents and priest, “ascertain from the children themselves whether they have some knowledge of this admirable Sacrament . . . .” Traditionally this has included instruction on the sacrament as well.
On the other hand, the efficacy of receiving the sacrament prior reaching the age of reason is somewhat questionable from a Latin theological perspective. That is why I gave you the quote from Aquinas: “from the fact of children being baptized, they are destined by the Church to the Eucharist; and just as they believe through the Church’s faith, so they desire the Eucharist through the Church’s intention, and, as a result, receive its reality.”
Whether or not there could be some other reception of grace by an infant actually receiving the Eucharistic elements; I don’t know of any. Perhaps some EC’s here could comment.
In any case, these are the reasons why I am Latin Rite on this issue. If they don’t convince you, that’s fine. I know my Eastern brothers would be glad to have you!
G
Genesis315
Guest
As St. Bonaventure noted, the Church takes many different and beautiful forms in many different places, but it is still one seamless garment–like Joseph’s coat.
C
chrisb
Guest
So what we are saying is that ‘Truth’ even when articulated in the Church is ‘relative’?
L
LilyM
Guest
The disciplines the Church imposes from time to time about things like the age when first communion and confirmation should be administered have nothing to do with eternal changeless capital-T Truth. It’s not a matter of doctrinal teaching or dogmatic belief that there be only one correct time of life for receiving these sacraments.So what we are saying is that ‘Truth’ even when articulated in the Church is ‘relative’?
Any more than the form of the Mass/Liturgy does (which has varied enormously at different times and in different places and yet still all been the one perfect sacrifice), or the different disciplines as to whether priests can be married or must be celibate, are matters of capital-T Truth.
C
chrisb
Guest
How do we distinguish a ‘discipline’ from the truth taught by the Church ever and always?
L
LilyM
Guest
Simple - we trust the Church in its collective wisdom to know the difference between the two, and accept its guidance as to which is which.How do we distinguish a ‘discipline’ from the truth taught by the Church ever and always?
Firstly because that’s it’s job, to preserve the eternal truths while changing the disciplines when prudence dictates, since they need changing from time to time. In its collective wisdom the Church hierarchy knows far more than you or I about these matters.
Secondly because it is guided by the Holy Spirit and won’t steer us wrong if we learn and trust what it teaches. Jesus promised this guidance to the Church, not to us as individual laypersons.
C
chrisb
Guest
You don’t find this answer awfully defensive and promoting blind obedience toward the hierarchy? What used to be obedience to Holy Tradition appears in our time to be blind obedience to the hierarchy. Do you believe it is prudent to promote such a practice among the laity with all the ills present in the Church?
C
chrisb
Guest
What did the Early Church do to replace the Jewish Bar-Mitzvah?
If, the circumcision without hands, replaced circumcision, what is the Eastern Orthodox counterpart to the Jewish Bar-Mitzvah? As I understand it, in the West, the Sacraments are progressively introduced into the life of the Christian as he/she is brought into deeper and deeper relationship with Him.
One of the reasons that I like this progressive introduction is that we in the West allows the child to make a personal claim of the faith of their fathers. By having First Communion after First Confession there is a very palpable connection between our call to Christian Perfection and our Most Blessed Sacrament. Christian Perfection has always been expressed in degrees of maturity or a deepening of our faith. This progressive introduction of the Sacraments in our lives mirrors our lives as we mature and deepen our participation in the Godhead as well as reflect our physical development as persons. They also serve to remind us at every stage of our lives (birth, adolescence, adulthood, marriage, sickness and death) of our continued walk with God as members of the Church. It also serves to engage the individual to their own deepening since ‘they’ make the choice to claim an active role in the faith. I believe that is what the whole point of Bar-Mitzvah is. I mean they are already ‘in’ the Covenant this ritual only ‘deepens’ their active involvement ‘in’ the Covenant.
Any thoughts?
If, the circumcision without hands, replaced circumcision, what is the Eastern Orthodox counterpart to the Jewish Bar-Mitzvah? As I understand it, in the West, the Sacraments are progressively introduced into the life of the Christian as he/she is brought into deeper and deeper relationship with Him.
One of the reasons that I like this progressive introduction is that we in the West allows the child to make a personal claim of the faith of their fathers. By having First Communion after First Confession there is a very palpable connection between our call to Christian Perfection and our Most Blessed Sacrament. Christian Perfection has always been expressed in degrees of maturity or a deepening of our faith. This progressive introduction of the Sacraments in our lives mirrors our lives as we mature and deepen our participation in the Godhead as well as reflect our physical development as persons. They also serve to remind us at every stage of our lives (birth, adolescence, adulthood, marriage, sickness and death) of our continued walk with God as members of the Church. It also serves to engage the individual to their own deepening since ‘they’ make the choice to claim an active role in the faith. I believe that is what the whole point of Bar-Mitzvah is. I mean they are already ‘in’ the Covenant this ritual only ‘deepens’ their active involvement ‘in’ the Covenant.
Any thoughts?
L
LilyM
Guest
Not a bit of it. The ills that are present in the Church stem from individuals or small groups among Bishops, priests, religious, and yes, laypeople too, who think they know better or differently from the collective wisdom of the Church. As expressed in its Councils and other collective documents - the GIRM (Mass rubrics), Canon Law, Catechism etc.You don’t find this answer awfully defensive and promoting blind obedience toward the hierarchy? What used to be obedience to Holy Tradition appears in our time to be blind obedience to the hierarchy. Do you believe it is prudent to promote such a practice among the laity with all the ills present in the Church?
And as those documents are clarified or expanded from time to time by the Holy Father or the Vatican in things like Papal Encyclicals, the recent Motu Proprio and so forth.
So the ills of the Church stem from lack of reasoned and mature (not blind by any means) obedience, which requires humility as well as maturity.
I’m not promoting blind obedience to individual bishops or priests among the hierarchy, rather rationally-based conformity (and study of the faith is required to properly discern this) to the collective mind of the Church, and to the Pope as final arbiter and keeper of the Keys of the Kingdom as the successor of St Peter. :getholy: Which is no more than Our Lord requested - ‘who hears you hears me, who rejects you rejects me’.
- Status