Not communing infants violates "let the little children come to me"?

[Ana_v]

That’s one of the issues I am interested in seeing sorted out (the one that disconcerts me the most, at the moment), and which is raised in this post. What follows is taken from a thread on FB, wherein an Eastern Orthodox friend responds to the suggestion that Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox theology have much agreement. His reponse, principally aimed towards a Catholic, was to list several important differences, and it included very pointed criticisms:

NOTE: The “U” word which has been recently prohibited, is used three times. I censored it because I was afraid that this thread would be taken down otherwise (though it is not part of my speech, but of the person I am quoting).

1. Created vs. Uncreated Grace…this is an enormous difference. Does God save us by communicating a created intermediary power to us, or by communicating His very energies to us? The Orthodox followed the Apostles, Prophets, and Fathers in accepting the latter answer. Rome rejected them and turned to the Philosophers, answering the former. Like it or not, you guys rejected St. Gregory Palamas’ view as outright heresy. And now you turn around and say it’s really the same thing. Pff.

1. The nature of salvation. Rome, following and developing the theology of Anselm, teaches that salvation is being saved from the wrath of God by having the merits of Jesus applied to you, which appeases His wrath. The Orthodox Church absolutely and 100% rejects this idea. We believe and emphasize Christus Victor. I know you guys claim to believe that as well, but whenever I ask a Roman Catholic about what they believe about the Cross, I never, ever hear Christus Victor unless I bring it up first. It’s always this legalistic tripe about merit and wrath. You accept Anselm’s theory of atonement, we reject it absolutely and call it heresy. Is that a difference, or do we really accept it but not know it?

1. The Papacy. Obviously, this is a big difference. You believe that the bishop of Rome, by virtue of his succession from St. Peter, has supreme, universal jurisdiction over every church in Christendom. We believe that the fullness of the Church exists in the local church. A local church is absolutely complete, and if every other church in Christendom was destroyed, it would still be complete. The Universal Church is the voluntary communion of Orthodox local churches. This is the clear teaching of St. Ignatius, who taught that the unity of the Church was grounded in the local bishop. We accept Eucharistic Ecclesiology. You reject it.

1. Spiritual practices. After the schism, it became common for Roman Catholic mystics to seek visions from God as a healthy method of growing closer to Him. The pre-schism Fathers rejected this as a dangerous and potentially demonic spiritual practice. Examples from your side are Francis of Assisi and “blessed Angela.” The Orthodox Church continues to reject this practice as spiritually dangerous and leading to prelest.

1. The filioque. Florence says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son “as from one principle.” This clearly teaches the double origin of the Holy Spirit, which is heresy. Lately I’ve been hearing Roman Catholics claiming that the Holy Spirit finds its origin in the Father alone but proceeds through the Son. Rather bizarre considering the words of Florence.

1. Faith and reason. Rome elevated reason to an exalted position after the schism. The Church has always respected reason, but it always understood that reason confirms the teaching of the Church understood by faith (not the same as blind faith), rather than being an equal to faith. Reason took such an exalted position in the Papal Church that Rome deprived infants of the Eucharist and Chrismation. They began bizarrely baptizing infants, then communing them at the arbitrarily decided “age of reason”, and then chrismating them as teenagers. This is a flagrant rebellion against the constant Tradition of the Church, which gave Orthodox children full access to the Holy Mysteries and the grace provided therein, and it is a violation of Christ’s commandment to “let the little children come to me.” I am aware that the U-----s often commune infants, but this is only becoming true nowadays because of the growing influence of Orthodoxy and many U-----s’ desire to appear like the Orthodox. In times past, it was very uncommon for the heavily Latinized U-----s to commune infants.

…

if we want to make the world a better place, we will destroy the Western theology which gave birth to atheism. It was the West which waged the Crusades against both the Orthodox and the non-Christians. It was the West which fought the bloodthirsty wars of religion as the Orthodox looked on in horror. It was the West which created such a repugnant doctrine of the Cross that it gave birth to atheism and all the atrocities committed in its name. Atheism wasn’t even known in the East until the West introduced its theology there.

(emphasis mine)

At first, I thought the suggestion that Catholicism gave birth to atheism to be very odd (atheism is ancient, is it not?) I didn’t see the connection. But, in analyzing it again in context of what he previously said about the Catholic emphasis on reason, I assume what he means is that the modern atheists’ fixation with reason (whether their particular arguments against theism/Christianity are reasonable, is irrelevant, the point being that they champion reason in principle) and consequent denigration of faith, has roots in western theology’s ‘elevation’ of reason.

 

[Vico]

Let the little children come to me is not narrowly defined as pertaining only to the nuturing of the Holy Eucharist in the Christian community. The western Church emphasizes the understanding and comittment to the Church, requiring discretion. The nuturing is the spiritual guidance of the Catholic parents, and there is no potential of sin in them from baptism to age 7 (east or west).

Addressing item 2:

Catchism of the Catholic Church - IV. The Sacraments of Salvation

1127 Celebrated worthily in faith, the sacraments confer the grace that they signify. [48] They are efficacious because in them Christ himself is at work: it is he who baptizes, he who acts in his sacraments in order to communicate the grace that each sacrament signifies. The Father always hears the prayer of his Son’s Church which, in the epiclesis of each sacrament, expresses her faith in the power of the Spirit. As fire transforms into itself everything it touches, so the Holy Spirit transforms into the divine life whatever is subjected to his power.

1128 This is the meaning of the Church’s affirmation [49] that the sacraments act ex opere operato (literally: “by the very fact of the action’s being performed”), i.e., by virtue of the saving work of Christ, accomplished once for all. It follows that “the sacrament is not wrought by the righteousness of either the celebrant or the recipient, but by the power of God.” [50] From the moment that a sacrament is celebrated in accordance with the intention of the Church, the power of Christ and his Spirit acts in and through it, independently of the personal holiness of the minister. Nevertheless, the fruits of the sacraments also depend on the disposition of the one who receives them.

1129: The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation. [51] “Sacramental grace” is the grace of the Holy Spirit, given by Christ and proper to each sacrament. The Spirit heals and transforms those who receive him by conforming them to the Son of God. The fruit of the sacramental life is that the Spirit of adoption makes the faithful partakers in the divine nature [52] by uniting them in a living union with the only Son, the Savior.

48 Cf. Council of Trent (1547): DS 1605; DS 1606.
49 Cf. Council of Trent (1547): DS 1608.
50 Thomas Aquinas, STh III, 68, 8.
51 Cf. Council of Trent (1547): DS 1604.
52 Cf. 2 Pet 1:4.

old.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt2sect1chpt1art2.shtml

 

[ConstantineTG]

To be quite honest and frank, the way the Western Church has been addressing the delay of Sacraments sound very much the same reason Protestants do not baptize children. They want the recipient of the Sacrament to be aware and choose to receive by their own choosing and understand what they are undertaking. My feeling is that the only reason the Roman Church is not applying the same logic to baptism is fear that the Protestant’s position will be validated.

But, that is just my own opinion on the matter. I also believe the Roman Church knows more about the matter than I do so that what she chose to do is the right thing to do.

 

[Ghosty]

Ironically the infant Communion part is the only thing in the quote I agree with and find merit in. Everything else he said is bunk, espescially the first point which shows this person has zero understanding of Latin theology.

I believe that waiting until the age of reason for Communion is dubious and certainly falls outside of Tradition. It’s not evil, and it’s not grounds for schism, but it is a practice that can’t be supported from tradition, and runs contrary to the express purpose and sign of the Sacrament. Isuppose I’d put it in the same category as Liturgical abuses, and the Orthodox practice of divorce and remarriage.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Celticnovice]

Point 4 seems to indicate private revelation…Interesting because as Catholics we are not obligated to believe private revelation, even if they are church approved! So I guess I fail to see how Catholics are taught to “seek visions”

 

[Hesychios]

To be quite honest and frank, the way the Western Church has been addressing the delay of Sacraments sound very much the same reason Protestants do not baptize children. …

Yes, I think it is a continuation of the same sort of reasoning. It is an argument that one’s intellectual development is a prerequisite for reception.

 

[Hesychios]

At first, I thought the suggestion that Catholicism gave birth to atheism to be very odd

Me too.

(atheism is ancient, is it not?) I didn’t see the connection. But, in analyzing it again in context of what he previously said about the Catholic emphasis on reason, I assume what he means is that the modern atheists’ fixation with reason (whether their particular arguments against theism/Christianity are reasonable, is irrelevant, the point being that they champion reason in principle) and consequent denigration of faith, has roots in western theology’s ‘elevation’ of reason.

Maybe, but it’s weak (and unnecessary) connection I wouldn’t make. As you have stated, there have been atheists for a great many generations (although how they get to that point can vary considerably).

 

[Vico]

Communion of baptised Infants is not necessary for salvation, but is not to be condemned.

Council of Trent, Session 21

CHAPTER IV: LITTLE CHILDREN ARE NOT BOUND TO SACRAMENTAL COMMUNION

Finally, the same holy council teaches that little children who have not attained the use of reason are not by any necessity bound to the sacramental communion of the Eucharist; for having been regenerated by the laver of baptism and thereby incorporated with Christ, they cannot at that age lose the grace of the sons of God already acquired. Antiquity is not therefore to be condemned, however, if in some places it at one time observed that custom. For just as those most holy Fathers had acceptable ground for what they did under the circumstances, so it is certainly to be accepted without controversy that they regarded it as not necessary to salvation.
…
Canon 4: If anyone says that communion of the Eucharist is necessary for little children before they have attained the years of discretion, let him be anathema.

catholic-forum.com/saints/trent21.htm

 

[CDB1718]

Western Catholics believe there is a stain of original sin on individual souls that’s washed away at Baptism. They believe a soul cannot be stained again until the person attains the use of reason and chooses to sin. The Eucharist is for strengthening us on our journey and people who are already in a state of perfect union with God don’t need strength to get to what they already have. It’s like giving medicine to a healthy man in their way of thinking. They would think, “Why would you do that?” And it could even be scandalous to them, as if to say these children weren’t in a state of grace. In their way of thinking, they wouldn’t think of baptized infants needing the Eucharist.

Eastern Catholics believe original sin corrupted the world so anyone born into and living in the world is subject to it. We also believe that it is possible to sin unintentionally, or without the use of reason. We want to give our children the nourishment they need for their spiritual journeys right from the start. We see all men, including infants, as sick and suffering in this world and we think it will only increase when they choose to sin on top of it. If we knew a famine was coming, would we start starving our children now to get them use to it or would we feed them plenty now while we could? In our way of thinking, we wouldn’t think of denying the children, the most worthy if anyone could be worthy, of this strength and grace.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Western Catholics believe there is a stain of original sin on individual souls that’s washed away at Baptism. They believe a soul cannot be stained again until the person attains the use of reason and chooses to sin. The Eucharist is for strengthening us on our journey and people who are already in a state of perfect union with God don’t need strength to get to what they already have. It’s like giving medicine to a healthy man in their way of thinking. They would think, “Why would you do that?” And it could even be scandalous to them, as if to say these children weren’t in a state of grace. In their way of thinking, they wouldn’t think of baptized infants needing the Eucharist.

Eastern Catholics believe original sin corrupted the world so anyone born into and living in the world is subject to it. We also believe that it is possible to sin unintentionally, or without the use of reason. We want to give our children the nourishment they need for their spiritual journeys right from the start. We see all men, including infants, as sick and suffering in this world and we think it will only increase when they choose to sin on top of it. If we knew a famine was coming, would we start starving our children now to get them use to it or would we feed them plenty now while we could? In our way of thinking, we wouldn’t think of denying the children, the most worthy if anyone could be worthy, of this strength and grace.

I’d just like to say that you are awesome

 

[Biedrik]

To point four I find several objections. First, mystics of the East have had visions. For example, St. Daniel the Stylite had a vision of St. Symeon Sylites speaking to him. I hardly think that any of the Orthodox would consider this vision to have been demonic. Second of all, I don’t think many of Catholic mystics who have had visions actively sought them out. One of the most famous ones that I’m familiar with is St. Faustina, who simply had her visions come to her. She never requested them or sought them from God, they just happened. Another famous example of Catholics with visions would be the children of Fatima. Again, as far as I know they didn’t seek out to have visions of the Blessed Mother, yet they happened anyways. I’m not sure that this is an entirely accurate depiction of Western spirituality.

 

[DaveScott]

To be quite honest and frank, the way the Western Church has been addressing the delay of Sacraments sound very much the same reason Protestants do not baptize children. They want the recipient of the Sacrament to be aware and choose to receive by their own choosing and understand what they are undertaking. My feeling is that the only reason the Roman Church is not applying the same logic to baptism is fear that the Protestant’s position will be validated.

But, that is just my own opinion on the matter. I also believe the Roman Church knows more about the matter than I do so that what she chose to do is the right thing to do.

Who says protestants do not baptize children? The Lutheran church does for one. Perhaps ‘some protestant churchs…’ would be more correct?

 

[Alveus_Lacuna]

Who says protestants do not baptize children? The Lutheran church does for one.

Also Anglicans, some Methodists, Presbyterians, etc.

 

[Erich]

My feeling is that the only reason the Roman Church is not applying the same logic to baptism is fear that the Protestant’s position will be validated.

Colossians 2:11-12 tells us, “In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not administered by hand, by stripping off the carnal body, with the circumcision of Christ. You were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.”

I think this is the main verse from which is derived the idea that “baptism is the new circumcision.” Of course, in biblical times (as well as today) circumcision was performed on infants.