Eucharist not necessary for salvation?

[justingrid]

I was brought up Protestant…and strongly anti-Catholic…but by God’s grace, he is beginning to open my eyes to the wonder of the one holy Catholic Church.

In my journey to a Catholic understanding, I have become convinced, that children receiving Communion is consitent with the Bible and the practice of the Church Fathers. However, in the Catholic Church, the practice seems to be rare.

This is one of the main issues (there are a few other minor issues)that is currently hindering my full cross-over to the Catholic Church.

The Council of Trent states that the receiving of the Eucharist is not necessary for salvation; yet it seems to be accepted that children in danger of death should be given the Blessed Eucharist.

Is this a contradiction? If not, what am I missing?

 

[LilyM]

Children? You mean young infants. I personally was about 6 when I made my first Communion, average age these days would probably be 8 or 9 or so.

I don’t ever recall the Latin Rite ever recommending communing infants. You may be thinking of Eastern Catholics, who along with our Orthodox brothers practice infant communion.

The Eucharist in any event, according to Latin theology, would be unnecessary for children under the age of reason - about 7 - since these are incapable of committing mortal sin, lacking the requisite knowledge and capability of full consent, so aren’t going to suffer for lack of the graces of the sacrament.

So for them it is not necessary. Doesn’t mean it’s undesirable at all, of course. It’s kinda like for we adults daily communion may be desirable and highly beneficial, but weekly is the norm, and only yearly is absolutely necessary.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I was brought up Protestant…and strongly anti-Catholic…but by God’s grace, he is beginning to open my eyes to the wonder of the one holy Catholic Church.

In my journey to a Catholic understanding, I have become convinced, that children receiving Communion is consitent with the Bible and the practice of the Church Fathers. However, in the Catholic Church, the practice seems to be rare.

This is one of the main issues (there are a few other minor issues)that is currently hindering my full cross-over to the Catholic Church.

The Council of Trent states that the receiving of the Eucharist is not necessary for salvation; yet it seems to be accepted that children in danger of death should be given the Blessed Eucharist.

Is this a contradiction? If not, what am I missing?

I believe it is necessary to understand the word “child” are we talking about a newly Baptized infant, 5 year old, 10, year old, 17year old? A newly Baptized infant up to 7 or 8 is in perfect Sanctifying Grace. However a newly Baptized infant in the Eastern Catholic Church receives Holy Communion at their Baptism, That however is not the practice in the Latin Church. The Latin Church prefers to catechize before reception of the Sacraments after Baptism. The Early Church Catechized after reception of Sacraments, even adult Baptism!

 

[justingrid]

LOL! I should have known that I should define my terms…apologies for that.

By child, I mean any child that is baptised, irrespective of age.

I believe that the Eastern Church correctly practices infant communion. It is consistent with the truth that God is their Father, as well as ours. He desires to feed them with Christ, as well as us. It is consistent with the covenant. Holy Communion, St. Paul tells us in 1 Cor 10, is not only our “communion” with Jesus Christ, but also with one another as the “Body of Christ” (and the body of Christ is what is present in the sacrament - it all fits together so nicely). St. John agrees with this in his first Epistle (chap 1). Children are baptised into that Body i.e. the Church and Jesus Christ.

I believe that it is not only Scripture that teaches this, but it was the common practice of the Church Fathers e.g. St Augustine states:

“Those who say that infancy has nothing in it for Jesus to save, are denying that Christ is Jesus for all believing infants. Those, I repeat, who say that infancy has nothing in it for Jesus to save, are saying nothing else than that for believing infants, infants that is who have been baptized in Christ, Christ the Lord is not Jesus. After all, what is Jesus? Jesus means Savior. Jesus is the Savior. Those whom he doesn’t save, having nothing to save in them, well for them he isn’t Jesus. Well now, if you can tolerate the idea that Christ is not Jesus for some persons who have been baptized, then I’m not sure your faith can be recognized as according with the sound rule. Yes, they’re infants, but they are his members. They’re infants, but they receive his sacraments. They are infants, but they share in his table, in order to have life in themselves.”

The Eastern Church has simply continued what was handed down from the Apostles to the Fathers…down through the ages. Ultimately, I believe that including our children (including infants), is what is consistent with what it means to be Catholic. Cathlocity refers to the unity and “worldwideness” of the Church. The question is, are our children part of that one holy Catholic Church if they are baptised into the household of God, which is the Church?

I know that children do not have the same ability to reason that we as adults do…but neither does an adult who is brain damaged; or an old person with dementia or alzheimers. But God, who is a loving Father reminds us through Christ that to whom much is given, much will be required. I believe that the converse is true too…children, and adults without cognisance, have not been given much, so our Father does not require as much as He does of us.

Now that I have explained my terms…and my view…I would be keen to get some of your thoughts…

 

[Aramis]

Children? You mean young infants. I personally was about 6 when I made my first Communion, average age these days would probably be 8 or 9 or so.

I don’t ever recall the Latin Rite ever recommending communing infants. You may be thinking of Eastern Catholics, who along with our Orthodox brothers practice infant communion.

The Roman Church did so before the middle ages, but the practice changed by the middle ages, along with the move to reception under the species of the bread alone by non-clerics.

In part this is probably due to the practice of small children receiving under the species of wine alone.

 

[AshleyBelle]

I will be watching this thread I am faithful to the Church, and I believe that they know better than I regarding this issue…but I admit it is one I have pondered and would like to see what others have to say about it

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

LOL! I should have known that I should define my terms…apologies for that.

By child, I mean any child that is baptised, irrespective of age.

I believe that the Eastern Church correctly practices infant communion. It is consistent with the truth that God is their Father, as well as ours. He desires to feed them with Christ, as well as us. It is consistent with the covenant. Holy Communion, St. Paul tells us in 1 Cor 10, is not only our “communion” with Jesus Christ, but also with one another as the “Body of Christ” (and the body of Christ is what is present in the sacrament - it all fits together so nicely). St. John agrees with this in his first Epistle (chap 1). Children are baptised into that Body i.e. the Church and Jesus Christ.

I believe that it is not only Scripture that teaches this, but it was the common practice of the Church Fathers e.g. St Augustine states:

“Those who say that infancy has nothing in it for Jesus to save, are denying that Christ is Jesus for all believing infants. Those, I repeat, who say that infancy has nothing in it for Jesus to save, are saying nothing else than that for believing infants, infants that is who have been baptized in Christ, Christ the Lord is not Jesus. After all, what is Jesus? Jesus means Savior. Jesus is the Savior. Those whom he doesn’t save, having nothing to save in them, well for them he isn’t Jesus. Well now, if you can tolerate the idea that Christ is not Jesus for some persons who have been baptized, then I’m not sure your faith can be recognized as according with the sound rule. Yes, they’re infants, but they are his members. They’re infants, but they receive his sacraments. They are infants, but they share in his table, in order to have life in themselves.”

The Eastern Church has simply continued what was handed down from the Apostles to the Fathers…down through the ages. Ultimately, I believe that including our children (including infants), is what is consistent with what it means to be Catholic. Cathlocity refers to the unity and “worldwideness” of the Church. The question is, are our children part of that one holy Catholic Church if they are baptised into the household of God, which is the Church?

I know that children do not have the same ability to reason that we as adults do…but neither does an adult who is brain damaged; or an old person with dementia or alzheimers. But God, who is a loving Father reminds us through Christ that to whom much is given, much will be required. I believe that the converse is true too…children, and adults without cognisance, have not been given much, so our Father does not require as much as He does of us.

Now that I have explained my terms…and my view…I would be keen to get some of your thoughts…

An infant (and adults who are brain damaged are treated as infants) are after Baptism completely FULL of Grace, perfected in Sanctifying Grace until they are capable of personal sin. The age of First Holy Communion is infact all based on the practice in place in that particular Church at that time. In the Latin Church today it’s around 7-8 years old.

 

[Aramis]

Note also: many of the Eastern Churches in Union with Rome still have first communion immediately following chrismation (confirmation), which is done as part of baptism.

 

[justingrid]

An infant (and adults who are brain damaged are treated as infants) are after Baptism completely FULL of Grace, perfected in Sanctifying Grace until they are capable of personal sin. The age of First Holy Communion is infact all based on the practice in place in that particular Church at that time. In the Latin Church today it’s around 7-8 years old.

Thanks for the reply Br Rich…that makes some sense.

I am still interested to know how emergency administration of the Eucharist to infants (and others treated as infants) in danger of death fits into this if they are full of grace, and the Eucharist is not necessary for salvation?

 

[LilyM]

Thanks for the reply Br Rich…that makes some sense.

I am still interested to know how emergency administration of the Eucharist to infants (and others treated as infants) in danger of death fits into this if they are full of grace, and the Eucharist is not necessary for salvation?

It fits in right alongside the church’s recommendation that EVERY Catholic receive Communion if they are in danger of death, assuming it is available for them.

Do we need to do so in order to be saved? Absolutely not - assuming we have no mortal sin on our souls, we will be saved irrespective.

Is it a good idea to receive, simply to increase the graces available to our (and the infants’) souls? Absolutely.

See I think saying infants (or indeed any person) is ‘full of grace’ (save Our Lady who was called so by the angel) is misleading. It is certainly safe to say, however, that the salvation of a child under the age of reason is not at risk if they do not receive First Communion, just the salvation of those of us adults who are in a state of grace is not at risk if we do not receive the sacrament on our deathbeds.

 

[GailMac]

I read that the age for First Holy Communion was lowered by a Saint who was also a Pope. I forget which one. A child must also be able to make a good Confession, etc.

Peace,

Gail

 

[justingrid]

It fits in right alongside the church’s recommendation that EVERY Catholic receive Communion if they are in danger of death, assuming it is available for them.

Do we need to do so in order to be saved? Absolutely not - assuming we have no mortal sin on our souls, we will be saved irrespective.

Is it a good idea to receive, simply to increase the graces available to our (and the infants’) souls? Absolutely.

See I think saying infants (or indeed any person) is ‘full of grace’ (save Our Lady who was called so by the angel) is misleading. It is certainly safe to say, however, that the salvation of a child under the age of reason is not at risk if they do not receive First Communion, just the salvation of those of us adults who are in a state of grace is not at risk if we do not receive the sacrament on our deathbeds.

I’m still a bit confused…and I really want to understand because this is a major barrier for me…why should the Eucharist be received by infants only in danger of death? If it is a good idea for them to receive the Eucharist to increase the graces available for their souls, why not from the earliest times?

I can understand that a child who has not received Communion but is baptised is in a state of grace - but surely when Jesus said that St. Peter and the Apostles should let the little children (including infants) come to Him, He meant in Baptism and Eucharist. After all, isn’t our most blessed time of coming to our Saviour experienced at the Eucharist. I can’t understand why the Catholic Church today has not allowed Christ’s little ones to come to Him…especially when the practice of the Catholic Church at the time of the Fathers allowed, and even required them to come.

Please understand that I am not trying to argue here…I really want to understand this…

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Thanks for the reply Br Rich…that makes some sense.

I am still interested to know how emergency administration of the Eucharist to infants (and others treated as infants) in danger of death fits into this if they are full of grace, and the Eucharist is not necessary for salvation?

I’m not aware of any “emergency administration of Holy Communion to infants” practice. We have even discussed small children under 7 receiving the Sacrament of Anointing of the Sick. We agreed that they benefit from receiving Confirmation and Anointing of the Sick if in danger of death, but there was no question that they go straight to Heaven even if they die without receiving them.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I’m still a bit confused…and I really want to understand because this is a major barrier for me…why should the Eucharist be received by infants only in danger of death? If it is a good idea for them to receive the Eucharist to increase the graces available for their souls, why not from the earliest times?

I can understand that a child who has not received Communion but is baptised is in a state of grace - but surely when Jesus said that St. Peter and the Apostles should let the little children (including infants) come to Him, He meant in Baptism and Eucharist. After all, isn’t our most blessed time of coming to our Saviour experienced at the Eucharist. I can’t understand why the Catholic Church today has not allowed Christ’s little ones to come to Him…especially when the practice of the Catholic Church at the time of the Fathers allowed, and even required them to come.

Please understand that I am not trying to argue here…I really want to understand this…

It’s just the choice of the Church to catechize before the reception of the Sacraments and not after reception.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I read that the age for First Holy Communion was lowered by a Saint who was also a Pope. I forget which one. A child must also be able to make a good Confession, etc.

Peace,

Gail

I believe it was Pope St. Pius X.

 

[LilyM]

I’m still a bit confused…and I really want to understand because this is a major barrier for me…why should the Eucharist be received by infants only in danger of death? If it is a good idea for them to receive the Eucharist to increase the graces available for their souls, why not from the earliest times?

I can understand that a child who has not received Communion but is baptised is in a state of grace - but surely when Jesus said that St. Peter and the Apostles should let the little children (including infants) come to Him, He meant in Baptism and Eucharist. After all, isn’t our most blessed time of coming to our Saviour experienced at the Eucharist. I can’t understand why the Catholic Church today has not allowed Christ’s little ones to come to Him…especially when the practice of the Catholic Church at the time of the Fathers allowed, and even required them to come.

Please understand that I am not trying to argue here…I really want to understand this…

Firstly, you’re erring in treating the Eucharist as some sort of either necessity or right in the case of children under the age of reason. For them it is neither a necessity nor a right - and even for adults it isn’t a right either, though it does become a necessity on occasion.

Secondly, you’re erring in thinking that we are preventing children from ‘coming to Him’ by not communing them. You wouldn’t argue that by preventing an older child who, say, hadn’t fasted prior to Communion, from communing, that we were preventing them from ‘coming to Him’.

The Church is permitted, by virtue of its Apostolic authority, to set whatever conditions it deems proper on reception of communion, whether requiring fasting for a certain amount of time or that a person be over a certain age. And there is no harm to our souls, and a lot of virtue, in being obedient to the Church in such matters. In this we imitate Jesus who Himself was obedient unto death.

Remember too that children ARE coming to Him when they come to Mass. We none of us are obliged to receive the Eucharist more than once a year. And laypeople used to be required to have permission from their pastors to receive more often than once a year in any event, so obviously receiving FREQUENTLY is not a necessity.

Now there are all sorts of factors in regard to children under the age of reason - one being that they might not be capable of properly understanding the sacrament.

Certainly there’s something to be said for reserving it for an age when they CAN properly understand. In fact didn’t St Paul say something about NOT permitting people to receive who couldn’t discern the Body and Blood? And that it could actually harm them to receive?

Shouldn’t this at least give us pause to reconsider routinely communing children who are below the age of reason, who perhaps can’t properly discern? At least, in any case of doubt, I’d err on the side of NOT communing, and this for me (and possibly the Latin Church) is one of those areas of doubt.

 

[twf]

What is the Eucharist? The Eucharist is Christ Himself, and by receiving this sacrament, we are given a share in His divine life. Divine life (sanctifying grace) is a share, or partaking, of the life of the Trinity itself…we are infused with a share of this life at baptism. Through venial sin we weaken this share in divine life, and through mortal sin we kill it. The Eucharist is thus necessary to strengthen the gift of divine life initially received at baptism. Young children under the age of 7 are not capable of personal sin and thus will not lose the grace given to them at baptism. Keep in mind that the Eastern Catholic Churches in communion with Rome do commune infants. Both practices are acceptable.

When, then, are infants in danger of death given the Eucharist? I suppose the Church wants to ensure that no Catholic is deprived of this experience before leaving this life…while a baptized infant is already in a state of grace, reception of Our Lord in the Eucharist is a very personal experience as we come into contact with the physical risen Lord. I would send your question to the “Ask an Apologist” board for a better answer on this point.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Has anyone but me noticed that in direct violation of the latest sticky in this forum, several posts described the practice of the Eastern Churches regarding infant communion?

 

[LilyM]

Has anyone but me noticed that in direct violation of the latest sticky in this forum, several posts described the practice of the Eastern Churches regarding infant communion?

You mean including the OP?

I wouldn’t be so sure that we’re in violation.

There are two elements to the rule. The first is a ban is on comparing Eastern and Western practices - and I don’t think a mere statement of the different practices necessarily means we’re comparing them.

If we portrayed one group of practices favourably and the other unfavourably, or something, then there might be a problem.

The second element is a ban on bringing up the practices of a Rite not currently being discussed in the thread. Now the OP specifically mentioned the practices of BOTH rites, so I don’t believe either Latin or Eastern rite pratices are irrelevant to the question.

In any event, I’m happy to await the judgement of the moderators as to whether or not this topic is in contravention of forum policy.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Has anyone but me noticed that in direct violation of the latest sticky in this forum, several posts described the practice of the Eastern Churches regarding infant communion?

It’s kind of hard not to mention the Eastern Church when the original poster specifically asks a question about Eastern and Wester practice?