T
thomas_jd
Guest
A child in the womb is the subject! Children in the womb are unborn by definition.
The canon covers children in the womb!
The ops question is “Does a baby in the womb receive the Eucharist?” The answer is no!
- Status
The canon covers children in the womb!
The ops question is “Does a baby in the womb receive the Eucharist?” The answer is no!
M
Marie5890
Guest
That would be the definitive answer to the OP’s question of
“does the baby in the womb receive the Eucharist?”
Answer:No
Reason: The sacred species are no longer the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ once the accidents are so digested that they are no longer recognizable as bread and wine
T
thistle
Guest
As the unborn child is not baptised I would assume the answer to be no.
ARTICLE 2
ARTICIPATION IN THE BLESSED EUCHARISTCan. 912 Any baptised person who is not forbidden by law may and must be admitted to holy communion.
V
Vico
Guest
What you are mentioning is the signs or wheat and wine also called accidents. What accompanies them is the divine essence which brings the sanctifying grace, also called habitual grace, that remains with us after the time of the signs being absorbed, and also actual and sacramental graces. Fr Hardon wrote: “He receives an increase of sanctifying grace, actual graces, and the special sacramental grace of a greater love of God and of others from every Holy Communion worthily received.”
therealpresence.org/archives/Eucharist/Eucharist_024.htm
A
Anathama_Sit
Guest
Greetings Thomas jd,
Thank you. This canon did catch my eye, however I did not give it much thought at the time.
God Bless.
Anathama Sit
H
hazcompat
Guest
When you receive, You are consumed.
peace
peace
M
Matthew_Holford
Guest
Quite. I believe that’s what I said.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Please read the Canon carefully. It talks about “ADMINISTRATION” of the Eucharist. It doesn’t talk about effects, it talks about actions and the discipline of actions. Canon Law is not about spiritual effects but ecclesiastical laws. You don’t need Canon Law to tell you that you cannot administer the Eucharist to a child in the womb because it is a physical impossibility.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
It has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Children below the age of reason can definitely receive the Eucharist and the Eucharist is certainly efficacious for them. The Eastern Rites do it all the time. My son has been receiving since he was 13 months old. The Canon talks about when a priest may “administer”, meaning give the Eucharist to a child in the Latin Rite.
F
fall_fox
Guest
I’m a Grandfather, Paw Paw to my six. Both my daughter and my daughter-in-law are wonderful Catholics, I believe that when both received our Lord in the Holy Eucharist my G-kids received our Lord as well.
When you consume the Body and Blood of our Lord, You are also consumed by our Lord Jesus the Christ. He fills you to the depth of your being, and that being the case the baby is consumed as well…
Think about the Holy Eucharist, it is a miracle in itself, don’t put limits on Jesus. Don’t be so literal where the Consecrated Host is concerned, and the digestive tract, your still thinking about bread and what happens with normal food. You must resign yourself to the fact that this is the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Savior, otherwise why do you receive the host. This is what I don’t understand about all those Catholics out there that are very lax and don’t come to church, why do they bother calling themselves Catholic? Gospel John 6 tells it all, either you can believe or you can’t. Like Jesus said “it is a hard thing to believe”.
When you consume the Body and Blood of our Lord, You are also consumed by our Lord Jesus the Christ. He fills you to the depth of your being, and that being the case the baby is consumed as well…
Think about the Holy Eucharist, it is a miracle in itself, don’t put limits on Jesus. Don’t be so literal where the Consecrated Host is concerned, and the digestive tract, your still thinking about bread and what happens with normal food. You must resign yourself to the fact that this is the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Savior, otherwise why do you receive the host. This is what I don’t understand about all those Catholics out there that are very lax and don’t come to church, why do they bother calling themselves Catholic? Gospel John 6 tells it all, either you can believe or you can’t. Like Jesus said “it is a hard thing to believe”.
A
Anathama_Sit
Guest
Greetings ConstantineTG,
I realized this, hence the “however I did not give it much thought at the time.” I do not know much about the Eastern Rites.
God Bless.
Anathama Sit
B
Brigid32
Guest
In a literal and canonical understanding, the baby probably does not receive Eucharist in the same sense than an adult does, however, as an 8 month pregnant woman, I can tell you that my son moves around within 5 or 10 minutes of any time I begin eating, so he most definately knows when I am eating and is getting something he can feel from it. I have not noticed him moving after I receive Eucharist, but maybe it isn’t enough food for him to notice. Or, maybe I have my mind on other things, and I don’t notice. I also know that there are studies showing that babies show a preference for foods that their mothers ate regularly when they were pregnant, likely because towards the end of the pregnancy they begin swallowing amniotic fluid, which likely has some flavor of what the mother has been eating. Also, I would add that that 15 minute thing is hogwash while pregnant. A pregnant woman’s metabolism slows down considerably. I have vomited things I ate several days ago. (Maybe that’s TMI?) And, of course, the baby gets all the dangerous elements of alcohol and other drugs consumed by pregnant women, so why not the good things, such as the essence of Christ? (And, for that reason, I would avoid Eucharist in the form of wine. Body of Christ or not, it still contains alcohol and is dangerous even in small quantities.)
Having said that, the Church decided long ago that unbaptised infants do not go to Hell or even limbo, as God is not that mean and loves babies, so, in the same vein of thinking, I believe that Christ loves my unborn child and is a part of him, as he is a part of me, whether or not I receive Communion, so in that sense, whether he receives Communion when I do is irrelevant. Christ is already within him and in Communion with him. But, I do like to think He is present in both of us in a special way when I receive Him. I think I can safely guarantee that none of the men who wrote our canon laws have ever been pregnant, nor do they have degrees is obstetrics, so their understanding of this topic is quite limited.
Having said that, the Church decided long ago that unbaptised infants do not go to Hell or even limbo, as God is not that mean and loves babies, so, in the same vein of thinking, I believe that Christ loves my unborn child and is a part of him, as he is a part of me, whether or not I receive Communion, so in that sense, whether he receives Communion when I do is irrelevant. Christ is already within him and in Communion with him. But, I do like to think He is present in both of us in a special way when I receive Him. I think I can safely guarantee that none of the men who wrote our canon laws have ever been pregnant, nor do they have degrees is obstetrics, so their understanding of this topic is quite limited.
T
thistle
Guest
Actually that is not correct. The official Church position is that it does not know what happens to unborn children and unbaptised infants and that it entrusts them to God’s mercy.
Personally, I believe God will take them home but anyone is free to think they go to Heaven, Limbo (not a Church teaching but we are also free to believe it) or Hell.
B
Batfink
Guest
I appreciate what you’re saying, but I think there’s also a risk of falling into the opposite trap of not believing that the Eucharist is food at all. Our Lord told us that he is real food and drink and the Church teaches us what I previously went into about digestion, how long the Sacred Species remain present etc.
Without wishing in any way to downplay the significance of Christ’s miraculous in-dwelling in our bodies through the Eucharist, we must also realise that Christ has chosen to accomplish this through the accidents of bread and wine and has chosen to be bound by their physical properties.
Therefore, as I previously asserted, although there is nothing wrong with praying for the baby and so on, possibly even making an act of spiritual communion on their behalf, it is incorrect to claim that the Eucharist is in any way physically transmitted to the foetus.
Brigid: Although you are, of course, free to eat and drink what you want in your pregnancy, many women are unduly panicked about what might damage the baby so I felt it important to correct you. I don’t wish to pick a fight and I’m sure you’re doing a wonderful job of nourishing your baby. However, particularly after the first trimester, there is no evidence that the miniscule amounts of alcohol one would consume in the Eucharist would be damaging to a foetus. Experts disagree on the upper limit of what one can safely drink, but the general consensus is 1-2 units twice a week; in addition the benefits of small amounts of certain types of drink (e.g. red wine) remain through pregnancy.
F
fall_fox
Guest
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Well, I don’t want to turn the thread into a catechesis of the Eastern praxis. My point only is that Eucharist is efficacious regardless of age. What is in the canons is a discipline, because the theology of the Latin Rite states that one who is below the age of reason cannot commit mortal sin, therefore once baptized is in a continuous state of grace until age of reason when they can sin. Thus Communion is reserved until the time they can commit mortal sin, so as to strengthen them from committing it.
Now, the topic at hand, the Eucharist is administered to the mother, not the child. So the effects of the Sacraments should go to whom it was administered to.
Lets look at this from another way, do only one of the conjoined twins need to receive a Sacrament of any kind for the other to receive graces as well? Even if the body is connected, the souls are separate. Therefore each individual soul needs to be administered the Sacrament directly to receive its graces. I mean, if a pregnant woman converts and is baptized, is the baby in the womb baptized as well? Of course not.
V
Vico
Guest
If a mouse eats the host he does not receive the grace. It has neither the capacity nor the disposition to receive, but a baptised human has the capacity, perhaps not the disposition however.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
C
Cristiano
Guest
A baby in the womb does not receive the Eucharist. Reception of the Eucharist must be a sensorial act, that is why we have sacraments. However, as a previous poster said, I would not put limits to God’s actions outside the sacraments.
This article could help people ponder more on the topic: The Difference between Spirtual and Sacramental Communion (Thomas Aquinas and Trent)
This article could help people ponder more on the topic: The Difference between Spirtual and Sacramental Communion (Thomas Aquinas and Trent)
M
Matthew_Holford
Guest
I assume its godparent would have to be a Catholic mouse.How about if it was a baptized mouse?
j/k
- Status