Different rules for different Catholics?

[jimmy]

I agree, they should recieve unless prohibited from doing so. Every Latin from every century would agree too

The problem is that baptism is oriented toward the Eucharist. That is its whole purpose of baptism. As the Catechism says, it is the source and summit of the Church. And in the early church to not recieve the Eucharist was basically to be seperated from the Church. The Eucharist makes the Church.

 

[Brendan]

The problem is that baptism is oriented toward the Eucharist. That is its whole purpose of baptism. As the Catechism says, it is the source and summit of the Church. And in the early church to not recieve the Eucharist was basically to be seperated from the Church. The Eucharist makes the Church.

Oriented towards, yes. It’s purpose, no. It was ordained to make a new creature in God and to make us adopted children of the Father.

It ALLOWS us to recieve the Eucharist and points towards it. But it also binds us to the precepts of the Church and to obedience.

So do you believe that if someone in the Early Church did not keep the Eucharistic fast, then they were considered to be seperated from the Church?

Is that the position of the Orthodox today?

 

[JackQ]

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?

Well, it would be a good idea, except that many in the Orthodox Churches wouldn’t commune with us unless we positively denied the truth set forth in the filioque. That can’t happen, so here we are. Of course, there’s nothing in the Seven Ecumenical Councils that contradicts the filioque, but that doesn’t seem to impact their attitude on the matter.

The only misgiving I have about removing the filioque is that it might give some people the false impression that the Church had decided that the filioque is untrue, and we don’t want to convey false impressions about Church teachings. On the other hand, on a personal level, I wouldn’t mind reciting the Nicene Creed without the filioque as a show of solidarity with the Eastern Catholics and with our separated brethren to the east. I doubt it would accomplish anything ecumenically, but I guess you never know until you try, eh?

 

[JackQ]

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?

I’m a Latin Rite Catholic, and I think that the Eastern practice is the better one in this regard. But there are other areas in which I think that the Latin rite has the better practice. For example, I think that it is better to use unleavened bread in the Eucharist, since the Last Supper took place on the first day of Unleavened Bread, and I can’t imagine that Jesus and the Disciples were using leavened bread. Besides, I’m not aware of any Eastern Rite Churches near where I live.

 

[Formosus]

The Bible says it was the day before the passover in the Gospel of John and the wine at the passover meal is consumed along with the bread, so I do not beleive there is a full conensus as to whether or not the last supper was or was not the passover. Certainly the Eastern churches beleive that it was not the passover.

 

[Filius99993]

The Bible says it was the day before the passover in the Gospel of John and the wine at the passover meal is consumed along with the bread, so I do not beleive there is a full conensus as to whether or not the last supper was or was not the passover. Certainly the Eastern churches beleive that it was not the passover.

We really can’t know for sure, it was so long ago. Besides, Jesus didn’t adhere to all of the Jewish traditions, remember what he said about the Sabbath?

 

[Algernon]

I’m a Latin Rite Catholic, and I think that the Eastern practice is the better one in this regard. But there are other areas in which I think that the Latin rite has the better practice. For example, I think that it is better to use unleavened bread in the Eucharist, since the Last Supper took place on the first day of Unleavened Bread, and I can’t imagine that Jesus and the Disciples were using leavened bread. Besides, I’m not aware of any Eastern Rite Churches near where I live.

I have heard two reasons for the Eastern use of leavening. One is that the risen bread represents the risen Christ. The other is that the point of the Feast of Unleavened Bread was to rid the Jewish household of all leavening by either burning it or baking it into bread and eating it; If the the latter is the case, then it would be reasonable to expect Jesus and his His Disciples to have used leavened bread.

A

 

[LilyM]

I have heard two reasons for the Eastern use of leavening. One is that the risen bread represents the risen Christ. The other is that the point of the Feast of Unleavened Bread was to rid the Jewish household of all leavening by either burning it or baking it into bread and eating it; If the the latter is the case, then it would be reasonable to expect Jesus and his His Disciples to have used leavened bread.

A

??? But if it was the Passover seder itself, it’d have to have been unleavened - remember the Israelites didn’t have time to wait for the bread to rise so they made unleavened bread instead at the first ‘Passover’, and ever since that was what they ate at Passover.

If the meal WASN’T a Passover seder it’d ruin all the significance of Christ being the paschal lamb (which was also eaten at Passover), no?

 

[Formosus]

No. If it wasn’t the passover meal, then it still signifies the paschal sacrifice in that Christ was instituting a new meal, the Eucharist, and his own death on the Cross was the paschal sacrifice.

 

[LilyM]

No. If it wasn’t the passover meal, then it still signifies the paschal sacrifice in that Christ was instituting a new meal, the Eucharist, and his own death on the Cross was the paschal sacrifice.

But it loses the connection - it’s no longer ‘paschal’ (pertaining to Passover). The whole point was that the flesh of the paschal lamb was eaten at a particular time, and its blood shed to save the Israelites from death on a particular day. Any other day and it was just lamb and blood, not the PASCHAL lamb whose blood saved Israel.

To have that connection the Last Supper and/or Crucifixion would have to coincide exactly with Passover, not just be vaguely at a similar time or vaguely during the Feast of Unleavened Bread somewhere. If it doesn’t it becomes something else entirely.

 

[Algernon]

Here I quote someone I admire:

"Look at the time factor for the events which took place, and you will see that the Last Supper was not the Passover Meal:

1. Jesus and the disciples eat the Last Supper,
2. Jesus and the disciples crossed the Kidron Valley (John 18:1)
3. Jesus underwent the Agony in the Garden
4. Jesus was Arrested
5. Jesus was brought before Ciaphas
6. Jesus was taken from Ciaphas and brought before Pilate.
   But St. John tells us that when Jesus was brought to Pilate the next morning (event No.6), the Jews who brought Him to Pilate would not enter the Praetorium, because doing so would render them unclean for the Passover:
   "Then they led Jesus from Caiaphas to the Praetorium, and it was early morning. But they themselves did not go into the Praetorium, lest they should be defiled, so that they might eat the Passover." (John18:28)
   St. John the Beloved Disciple (who witnessed the events himself first hand) clearly says that the events listed 1-6 took place before the Passover, so leavened bread was still used."

A

 

[peacelight]

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.

Pray to God sincerely for guidance. You will know when it is right and which one is the right one. The truth will set you free. I suggest you go to the right source, people that know better.