Along these same lines, a very young Latin Rite child who has received Communion because of danger of death at 4 years old, would not be barred from continuing to receive upon recovery.
*You confuse me! Here a child must prepare for Holy Communion when she/he is 7 and knows exactly what to do. When you say Eastern Rite I assume you refer to the likes of the Maronite Church. Here we go to each other’s Churches - the only difference is the liturgy which I find very beautiful - otherwise it is the same. As for Communion they dip the host in the blood before placing on the tongue - Maronites receive on the tongue.
*Exactly, should a child be 3-yo and receive in Communion with the host dipped as usual on the tongue, I can’t see how this would be an issue in the Latin Rite as you are in essense going through the same procedure.*You confuse me! Here a child must prepare for Holy Communion when she/he is 7 and knows exactly what to do. When you say Eastern Rite I assume you refer to the likes of the Maronite Church. Here we go to each other’s Churches - the only difference is the liturgy which I find very beautiful - otherwise it is the same. As for Communion they dip the host in the blood before placing on the tongue - Maronites receive on the tongue.
However I once saw a woman from the Greek Orthodox go to Holy Communion and broke the Host into little pieces and give them to her infant children!!! It was strange to me!
IMHO, this is where this particular argument breaks down. We are speaking of fellow Catholics. They are not guests - they are “family”. As CDB1718 correctly points out, we are in communion with each other. That also implies that we should be aware of each other’s customs and norms.
Kneeling is part of receiving the Eucharist. So it the entire Liturgy.
Even family are guests. Even your own parents can be guests, especially if they’re the type who likes to say “as long as you are living under my roof…”. When you have your own home, neither of you are under their roof, therefore things happen differently.
If I took a vacation in a town with only one Catholic parish and it is RC, and the priest found out I was Eastern Catholic and said I may not receive, then I won’t argue. I’d be pissed off, but I have nowhere else to go. I know I have to go, there is a legitimate Catholic parish there. Or I might go to an Orthodox one instead if one is available. If I’m not receiving anyway.
If they are non-Catholics, yes. The best use of the “guest” analogy these days would be applicable to the Orthodox and select other groups who, despite not being in full communion with Rome, are nonetheless invited (although perhaps not permitted from their end) to receive the Holy Eucharist in the Catholic Church.
I think on the contrary, the OP asked how do *your *children receive…looking for personal examples and TG responded that *his *children did not receive. He is not teaching doctrine, but giving a personal example.
I don’t believe sister Babochka’s point was whether the priest would let you receive or not, but whether it is right to let the principle of “unity in action” of the community during the Liturgy override the NECESSITY of receiving the most Holy Body and Blood.
When you start to talk about praxis in the Latin Church you go beyond personal preferences. There is a major difference between praxis for Latin Catholics and praxis in the Latin Church the latter implies the first but it is not limited to it (e.g. how to behave with non-Catholics or non-Latins).
Actually, the question was how do the childern of EASTERN Catholics receive…AFAIK, brother Constantine is canonically Latin (with a great love for the Byzantine Tradition), and so his children, even if baptized/chrismated/communed in an Eastern Catholic Church. On that level, his response did not answer the question.
The Canons of the Church are for interpretation and application of the bishop. As laypeople it is not up to us to open the canons and waive it to our clergy and make them submit to our interpretation of it.
That’s a fair way of looking at it. That said, the moment where scandal was avoided in this example should become a teaching moment for the faithful, even if priestly conscience is exercised respectfully in this manner and matter.
Actually, on the matter at issue, the priest has sufficient authority to decide who can or who cannot receive in his parish.
I would call that a “fraternal correction”, assuming that is done with the utmost level of charity.
No one here has suggested such behavior. I’m unclear how you come up with such a characterization from the responses given in this thread.
The mere fact that people point to the canons and claim a “right”. This concept of “rights” is actually unique to the American psyche and their understanding of a democracy. The Church is not a democracy, thus our secular understanding of laws and rights do not apply to the Church.
So you are saying that the Church is wrong when she says that the Latin faithfuls have a right to receive while kneeling? Do people have no rights in regard to the sacraments?
I see we were posting at the same time.
I would have to disagree here with the characterization of waving canons at anyone. Of course you are saying one has the “right”, not saying one ought to do so, those are separate and prudence should define what happens.