Why does the Latin Catholic tradition not allow infants to receive Holy Communion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter john78
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I spoon is what is commonly used, never seen a tube being used.
 
I agree there are excellent convoluted answers that specifically answer a very simple question why one what ever with in x,y, or z is allowed to receive holy communion in the RCC but the RCC does not allow their own infants to receive holy communion, so yes I agree with you completely.

an thus since the topic has been answered repeatedly already I assume it will be closed momentarily or just die off.

I may have been exaggerating about the length of that one article I scrolled past, if one has the time it is a very short read , though on the other hand if on does not have the time then it is a rather long read.

and if everyone is coming from the same " Church " as you have stated, then why do people give any other names and distinguish ourselves as byzantine, Coptic, roman catholic, eastern, western… if we are all universal as the word Catholic translates to, if we are all Christian, worshiping the same God, then why not just cut out the middle, universalize all the rules under the Roman Catholic Church and call it a day and stop confusing everyone else in the process of how the Catholic Church is " universal " yet we have the Roman Catholics, the latin , this rite, that rite, etc an so on to get things more convoluted and thus we have to go back into the history books and find out how got aggravated at who first and then splintered off. But hey at least we are all from the same Church and the RCC accommodates others from the " same church " yet infants baptized in the same RCC or same church are not allowed, lol it makes perfect sense I don’t know why I cant understand it !

So simple the infant could probably explain it an I probably still wouldn’t understand it.
 
and if everyone is coming from the same " Church " as you have stated, then why do people give any other names and distinguish ourselves as byzantine, Coptic, roman catholic, eastern, western… if we are all universal as the word Catholic translates to, if we are all Christian, worshiping the same God, then why not just cut out the middle, universalize all the rules under the Roman Catholic Church and call it a day and stop confusing everyone else in the process of how the Catholic Church is " universal " yet we have the Roman Catholics, the latin , this rite, that rite, etc an so on to get things more convoluted and thus we have to go back into the history books and find out how got aggravated at who first and then splintered off. But hey at least we are all from the same Church and the RCC accommodates others from the " same church " yet infants baptized in the same RCC or same church are not allowed, lol it makes perfect sense I don’t know why I cant understand it !
Click to expand...
john78,

The universal Church, the one Catholic Church, is a full communion of many particular Churches.

Our oneness, our unity, our essence, is based on the following:
  1. Holy Faith and Morals
  2. Holy Mysteries (Sacraments)
  3. Holy Hierarchy (Pope of Rome, and Bishops in full communion with him).
Our multiplicity, our diversity, our pluriformity, are based on the following:
  1. Theologies (How we express the Faith)
  2. Liturgies (How we celebrate the Sacraments)
  3. Spiritualities (How we pray)
  4. Disciplines (How we govern ourselves)
So, in the case of the Holy Eucharist being given to infants: Our unity here is that all of us in the one Catholic Church possess the Eucharist as one of the sacraments of the Church, but who may receive the Eucharist is a matter of discipline, which can legitimately vary among the various particular Catholic Churches.

It is a matter of current discipline in the particular Latin Church (aka Roman Catholic Church) to withhold the Eucharist from their infants until the child has grown. In the particular Eastern Churches, however, the traditional discipline is to give the Eucharist to infants. Some Eastern Churches have opted to imitate the Latins and have adopted the practice of withholding the Eucharist from infants, but the Holy See in Rome have encouraged those Eastern Churches to restore their traditional practice of infant communion.

So, in situations where you have an Eastern family at a Roman Mass, the Eastern family is permitted to have their infants receive communion in honor of, and respect for, the Eastern discipline of infant communion, but the Roman families can not present their infants for communion, because their current discipline is different.

This is ok, because as I said earlier, we are varied and diversified on the disciplines. It is ok to be different. We are not a uniformed communion, and we shouldn’t try to be uniformed. We are a pluriformed communion. We should let each particular Church govern and discipline herself as how she sees fit, provided we all agree on the essentials, the 3 points of our unity listed above.

Another varied discipline is the discipline of priestly celibacy in the Latin Church vs. the traditional married priesthood of the Eastern Churches. So, next time, you see a Eastern Catholic priest with his wife and family sitting in a pew and worshiping God in a Roman Catholic mass, don’t be surprised, it is ok! 😃

I realize that there is a lot of terminology in my post, which can be difficult to understand sometimes, but that’s the only way to learn this stuff, that is, to engage the concepts head on. Sometimes milk is not enough for me, I need meat to be satisfied. 🙂

God bless,

Rony
 
**

So, in situations where you have an Eastern family at a Roman Mass, the Eastern family is permitted to have their infants receive communion in honor of, and respect for, the Eastern discipline of infant communion, but the Roman families can not present their infants for communion, because their current discipline is different.
Click to expand...
This is ok, because as I said earlier, we are varied and diversified on the disciplines. It is ok to be different. We are not a uniformed communion, and we shouldn’t try to be uniformed. We are a pluriformed communion
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

ty for your response Rony, I actually understood it !

the issue I guess I have a problem wrapping my head around is the one I bolded and underlined from your response, that part just comes off as a double standard and appears to only be accommodating another branch from the same tree. And I would doubt it might at some point in time cause a lot of confusion for families with infants in the RCC who see a new family come in with an infant and their infant is allowed to receive holy communion, and thus a lengthy conversation once again develops between families and clergy. Or what happens instead or hypothetically, a RCC family who for what ever reason is either close minded or just needed an excuse to leave the RCC thusly does so based upon either their own ignorance or what ever an moves to another branch of the same tree to where their infant can receive holy communion.A set unified of rules and standards across the board would be nice where if everyone can not be happy, then everyone is just unhappy and has to deal with it.

The I/U part that I quoted from your response next I can also understand and agree with as well , though not being uniformed only causes more confusion for those who probably need the information more than myself to fully understand our faith, something as simple as agreeing that all priests should either be allowed to be married or not in all parts of the universal church should be something everyone can agree on with out someone having a heart attack and starting WWIII.

The devil is in the details I suppose, it makes or breaks a person with out a strong sense of their own faith, and even at times causes doubt for those with a good sense of faith, and usually the reasons for the differences started before any of us were ever born, and there was a power struggle between two rivals, or someone wanted to kneel while someone else wanted to stand at some point during the celebration of the mass and bingo now another branch of the tree has sprouted.
How long until someone who is Roman Catholic here in America decides to splinter off once again from the Roman Catholic Church in Italy or splinter from the Vatican which ever Is a proper term to use, an thus creates a mirror image of the Catholic Church here in the USA with the only difference being that men who want to be priests can be married and have children. There is no law in our country to forbid anyone from doing just that and financing their own church to be built , a new debate would thus be started, the Vatican would pop their lid , and people would be screaming scripture quotes on here till they are blue in the face, yet we are supposed to remember we are all one UNIVERSAL CHURCH, and thus with everything you have pointed out in your response to me, technically the Vatican / Rome should thus respect and accept anyone who ventured on that hypothetical I just proposed. Because why,
Our multiplicity, our diversity, our pluriformity, are based on the following:
  1. Theologies (How we express the Faith)
  2. Liturgies (How we celebrate the Sacraments)
  3. Spiritualities (How we pray)
  4. Disciplines (How we govern ourselves)
Click to expand...
thusly all mindless dribbling posts about how one should receive holy communion, etc should end based upon that right there, because how one chooses to express their faith is not for anyone to judge at any level, even with the hypothetical I expressed, more over

posts and articles in the news in regards to women priests who are calling themselves Catholic Priests and have been " ordained " by a " bishop " thusly is no longer a complaint either. Nor can one logically argue that since women can not be priests thusly one can not be ordained by a bishop as it is just impossible an the act is merely an empty act, that would no longer be true, their would be complete validity based upon our Our multiplicity, our diversity, our pluriformity, thus another branch has sprouted on the tree ,and it is nothing to worry about.
  • shrugs *
that is how I interpret what you have suggested, and thus the confusion continues because some how someone is going to come back with the reply, wait wait wait, no no no see that does not apply because… and thus back to the double standard and the originality to my confusion, which is now only partial.

Double standards are rampant in society be it in the secular world or faith world.
 
John, because those rules were put in place by legitimate authorities. Ordaining women, on the other hand, would contradict the highest of authorities - Jesus Christ Himself - and his Vicar on earth, the Holy Father. Now it is possible, though unlikely, that priests will be allowed to marry, but likely in such a case it would have to be prior to ordination (the Latin Church does allow it in exceptional cases, so it does have precedent). But to do it without the consent of authority is the sin of schism.

You have to understand, however, that there are plenty of places where there are slightly different rules, or even radically different rules, for different jurisdictions. Take the United States. There are 50 states, each with its own distinct legal systems. There is a unifying Constitution, yes, but there is still a considerable leeway for each state to decide its own laws according to its own traditions.

We see this in the Catholic Church as well. That’s why there are Eastern Catholic Churches, and different rules for different areas and people as well, where it does not contradict dogma. Even in the Latin Church there are variations, especially liturgically.
 
Cojuanco said:
John, because those rules were put in place by legitimate authorities. Ordaining women, on the other hand, would contradict the highest of authorities - Jesus Christ Himself - and his Vicar on earth, the Holy Father. Now it is possible, though unlikely, that priests will be allowed to marry, but likely in such a case it would have to be prior to ordination (the Latin Church does allow it in exceptional cases, so it does have precedent). But to do it without the consent of authority is the sin of schism.

You have to understand, however, that there are plenty of places where there are slightly different rules, or even radically different rules, for different jurisdictions. Take the United States. There are 50 states, each with its own distinct legal systems. There is a unifying Constitution, yes, but there is still a considerable leeway for each state to decide its own laws according to its own traditions.

We see this in the Catholic Church as well. That’s why there are Eastern Catholic Churches, and different rules for different areas and people as well, where it does not contradict dogma. Even in the Latin Church there are variations, especially liturgically.
Click to expand...
yes thank you I do understand what double standards are, even in the 50 states.
 
it isn’t a lack of knowledge if anything it is a sad fact across the globe, double standards to take place in the RCC and in other parts of the " universal church " . People may not want agree that double standards take place in the faith, that is fine, but from my perspective it comes off as a double standard which ever side of the fence one is on. Rules apply here, but not there, some thing is acceptable in one instance but not in another, yet the rules exist and are only enforced to the applicable part of the universal church not in regards to a visitor.

it would be similar to in the secular laws of our justice system if someone came from Italy into the USA, and broke a law that is to not go to an extreme , but merely a minor offense and would simply put the person in jail for 30 days, and then saying okay well since this universal human who came from another country , came into ours and broke a law, we will excuse this person because we want to be accepting of others who visit us, yet if our own citizens break that law, they be subject to the law and thus face the 30 day jail sentence.

as far as I can tell, that is considered a double standard, if the religious world doesn’t like it, what ever , no skin off my back.
 
john78 said:
a lot people tend to think their child an rationally understand everything at an early age, when in reality anyone can confuse a preschooler or kindergardner rather easily if one wanted to, anyone can explain why 1 + 1 = 2. simple math for a simple mind, but then I expand on that same simpleness to a child in a quick method and jump into advance math that simple answer loses its meaning.

still no one seems able to easily explain why the RCC has an age limit for those who are Roman Catholic and why their infant can not receive holy communion, yet if one comes from another what ever the proper terminology is that I do not care to learn and is visiting a RCC an asks that their infant be allowed to receive holy communion because they are far from home then it is allowed because of all the reasons that are too convoluted .

it is good for to be tolerant or accepting to one but not to our own infants is basically the message, but that is wrong because someone can quote Canon Law or something else which is very convoluted an makes no sense.

basically one has to study canon law an etc to actually understand why any of this makes sense.

but thanks for responding anyhow. ill be sure to repeat myself again later when someone else can not simplify the answer at all once again. I don’t mind doing things repeatedly until either someone gets tired of repeating their same convoluted answer and pointing out how children will say they say understand everything when we all know good an well they don’t. they understand a little, at best or until someone can give me a logical simple answer that actually makes sense with out blowing a gasket.
Click to expand...
Just skimming through this thread, it seems to me that people were really trying to clarify their answers for you. I can’t really say that you have been terribly polite. I am proud of the way they have treated your questions patiently and with respect.
 
HelenRose said:
Just skimming through this thread, it seems to me that people were really trying to clarify their answers for you. I can’t really say that you have been terribly polite. I am proud of the way they have treated your questions patiently and with respect.
Click to expand...
Well said
 
to infer emotion in a text chat is not the best way to go, it just leads to assumptions, I could infer an assume that well stated response is an attack on me an then get bent out of shape and go on a tangent but then where does that get anyone.

yes people have been attempting to answer my questions, some have taken a very long drawn out convoluted approach in doing so, I have thusly managed to come to the conclusion of how even in the spiritual world that being of the Catholic faith that double standards are present, just as they are in the secular world.

if you are offended at anything I have said, it is not my problem because I have not gone out of my way to offend anyone here.

I am confident of the answers I have managed to piece together, if one wants to debate me that I am wrong in my conclusions I have no problem entering into that debate.

you can easily skim back to any of my responses and I will be more than able to explain my thought process if you or anyone else needs a simple explanation .
 
John78,

Here is another way to look at it… I once came across a phrase which I think fits this discussion:

“Let us have unity in the essentials, and let us have diversity in the non-essentials, but in all things, let us have charity.”

That phrase is designed to avoid two opposite extremes, and thus maintain a balance. One extreme is exemplified by the term “uniformity” which tends to uniform not just the essentials, but the non-essentials as well. With this extreme, the various gift of tongues of the Holy Spirit to various peoples are thwarted for the sake of only one tongue mass copied across the board to all people. This extreme thus forces, for example, the Gentiles to be Jews, or forces the Jews to be Gentiles.

The other extreme is exemplified by the term “relativism” which tends to diversify not just the non-essentials, but the essentials as well. With this extreme, the One Faith of the Apostles is thwarted for the sake of a multiplicity of contradicting faiths. This extreme thus destroys the uniqueness of the Apostolic Faith and makes it out to be no greater or lesser than any other competing faith.

As Catholics, we must reject both extremes. We must reject both uniformity and relativism as errors. We must reject uniformity as an error which attacks Christian Freedom, and we must reject relativism as an error which attacks Christian Truth. So, to use the philosophical terms of “essence” and “form”, we are not pluri-essentialed, and we are not uni-formed. Instead, we are uni-essentialed, and pluri-formed.

Now, let me categorize the issues that were brought up:
  1. Infant Communion is a non-essential. Therefore, there is freedom in the various Catholic Churches with regards this discipline.
  2. Standing or Kneeling is a non-essential. Therefore, there is freedom in the various Catholic Churches with regards this discipline.
  3. Communion (the Eucharist), is an essential. This is Truth, and Truth can not vary across the various Catholic Churches.
  4. Priestly celibacy and a married priesthood are both non-essentials. Therefore, there is freedom in the various Catholic Churches with regards this discipline.
  5. The Priesthood, and specifically, the all male Priesthood is an essential. This is Truth, and Truth can not vary across the various Catholic Churches.
Finally, with regards the term “double standard”, this term should be interpreted in a positive way with regards the non-essentials, because there should be double, triple, and multiple standards when it comes to the various gifts, the various non-essential disciplines that exist in the Catholic Church. However, the term “double standard” should be interpreted in a negative way if it is being referred to the essentials of our Faith. In other words, there shouldn’t be any double standards on the essentials, there should be only one standard on the essentials.

God bless,

Rony
 
Children must take 2 years of first communon classes because they have to be taught about what we are receiving is Jesus body and blood. To understand the intimacy that goes along with it.
 
Children must take 2 years of first communon classes because they have to be taught about what we are receiving is Jesus body and blood. To understand the intimacy that goes along with it.
 
Well I understand your point John. I’ve yet to see any answer as to why this oldest tradition of the Church was changed, other than " because they said so".
 
I don’t know the details of the history, and haven’t really read much on the issue but I would guess the difference has to do with their respective understandings of the the sacraments. The Eucharist is part of the identity as a Christian from an eastern perspective. Baptism is directly oriented toward the Eucharist. Baptism is the death and burial with Christ, and in the Eucharist you recieve new life. It is the definition of the Church. The western perspective separates the Eucharist from baptism, so they are two completely seperate sacraments. In baptism you are forgiven your sins and recieve sanctifying grace, and are returned to the state of justice and holiness. That is enough to receive salvation, so it isn’t necessary to receive the Eucharist immediately. The Eucharist can give grace later to purify a person of their sins and give them strength.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top