Pedo-Communion

MKJ · Jan 21, 2016

~Anastasia~ said:
Just thinking of something inspired by this thread.

If a denomination practiced communion being open to all baptized Christians, but did not recognize paedo-baptism, I wonder what they do if presented with a baptized infant or small child for communion ... ?

I think almost without exception, groups like that have a non-sacramental view of communion.

MKJ · Jan 21, 2016

Cappadocious said:
I'm saying they are connected and interdependent. The priest has the charism to, among other things, relate to the bishop and the laity as a conveyor of the laying on of hands. Can he do so without the bishop? No, but counterfactual dependence only gets you so far. It also takes a priest for a priest to do it. In the Latin churches, priests are not typically seen as having this charism within the ministerial economy of the church because they are a step too far removed.

Also, for us Chrismation is the laying on of hands for the reception of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

I think your supposition here is just incorrect though. I don't think that is the reason for the difference. A much more obvious answer is that in the west they chose to maintain the older practice, and in the east they did not - neither seems to have considered the other "wrong." There are a plethora of good pastoral and practical reasons that would influence how chose to deal with the issue of larger diocese where bishops could lay hands on for every child. I would be inclined to look first at demographic questions.

~Anastasia~ · Jan 21, 2016

MKJ said:
I think almost without exception, groups like that have a non-sacramental view of communion.

Thank you, MKJ. I was not completely sure of every group, so I wasn't sure what I was imagining.

Anhelyna has probably given the most extreme real-world example of what really happens.

I can't imagine it likely, for example, that a parent would baptize and commune their infant in the Orthodox Church, then soon be taking them forward for communion with Baptists.

Though when my daughter was very young, and I really had no understanding of the full meaning of things, I visited a number of different churches and I can recall trying to decide what to do concerning her in some of them. That was simply my own ignorance though.

MKJ · Jan 21, 2016

mark46 said:
Yes, Catholic think that education of youth should get done. How silly of them. We have followed the guidance of those who teach. Their guidance is that if confirmation were during infancy, many parents would not give their children an exposure to the Church over several years.

So, yes their is a pastoral problem in many, many churches. The congregations are getter older as relatively few youth are brought up in the Church, or even exposed to the Church for very long. Catholics have chosen to DEAL with the issue by continuing to have communion at 7 or 8, with required classes before, and have confirmation at 15 or so, with required classes before. We can look at the results. In our town of 40,000, a new Catholic high school has been opened.

Criticize all you wish. In the US, Roman Catholics are getting their children exposed to the Church over many years. Also, parents attend Church while their children are young and are part of the life of the Church. Perhaps, all the other traditional churches don't have any problems with Sunday attendance, or not.

In the end, I don't think that making "perfect" theological choices (through choosing one theological opinion or another) needs to get in the way of pastoral concerns.
==========
And just BTW, attendance is fine in Catholic churches. Most of this is because of being open to immigrants (well, for non OBOB members). Much also is due to children being exposed to the faith and being part of your classes and groups.

Mark, I have to ask if you choose to read things into posts deliberately. I've never suggested that education is a bad thing.

You yourself have said that the parents are NOT interested in education - they need to be bullied into it by making it a requirement to have the sacrament, and then they often are not seen at church much afterward. That is - they have a sense that the objective aspect of the sacrament needs to get done without a strong feeling about the other aspects of discipleship that we would expect to go with it. I would suggest there is a somewhat similar attitude to the Eucharist in many Catholic parishes - hence the exodus that often follows distribution.

It's not a criticism from me so much as an observation - I have heard it as a criticism, however, from a great many Catholics who despair about getting kids and parents really interested and invested in education and even just weekly participation. That's a problem in many denominations, some more than others, but the solution of requiring it for kids to be confirmed is a solution more often seen in Catholic parishes. I'm not sure how successful it's really been though, the kids go, but often that's the end of the line.

MKJ · Jan 21, 2016

Anhelyna said:
ANASTASIA ! - wow what a question ? It's certainly an interesting one.

There are enough problems with some Latin Catholic Priests being most unwilling to Commune young EC children. No matter how it is explained to them that it is permitted and indeed encouraged - they seem afraid that it could cause scandal.

I can see that it might cause some issues, actually. Just questions would be easy enough to deal with, but what would a priest say when a parent finds out kids in other Catholic Churches are allowed to commune, while theirs aren't? I can see it getting dicey if the only answer was a different in traditional practice, most westerners don't accept that.

Anhelyna · Jan 21, 2016

MKJ

Sadly I think that if we are really honest - to many RC Parents the later Administration of the Sacrament of Confirmation is seen by many of them as being a Rite of passage - once it's done then it's over and done with.

I well remember what I heard an RC Cardinal say when he visited a Parish to talk with parents before the preparation for Confirmation started. The hall was just about full [ a large parish and 3 primary Schools attached to it ] and the Cardinal, as he entered the Hall, turned to the parish priest and said something similar to this " You know Father X - there are very probably parents here that you've never seen in Church and you will next see them at the Confirmation Mass and then you'll never see them again till their funeral. "

MKJ · Jan 21, 2016

Anhelyna said:
MKJ

Sadly I think that if we are really honest - to many RC Parents the later Administration of the Sacrament of Confirmation is seen by many of them as being a Rite of passage - once it's done then it's over and done with.

I well remember what I heard an RC Cardinal say when he visited a Parish to talk with parents before the preparation for Confirmation started. The hall was just about full [ a large parish and 3 primary Schools attached to it ] and the Cardinal, as he entered the Hall, turned to the parish priest and said something similar to this " You know Father X - there are very probably parents here that you've never seen in Church and you will next see them at the Confirmation Mass and then you'll never see them again till their funeral. "

Unfortunately I think that is common. It's the parents I think that are most interesting, that they do not come - I think in most groups in the west, young people go through a time when they explore other things, or go off to other places and aren't very settled. But why don't the parents show up?

All4Christ · Jan 21, 2016

MKJ said:
I think your supposition here is just incorrect though. I don't think that is the reason for the difference. A much more obvious answer is that in the west they chose to maintain the older practice, and in the east they did not - neither seems to have considered the other "wrong." There are a plethora of good pastoral and practical reasons that would influence how chose to deal with the issue of larger diocese where bishops could lay hands on for every child. I would be inclined to look first at demographic questions.

Where did you hear that the current practice of the west is the older tradition? In the fourth century Apostolic Confessions, it provides the rubric for children to receive. I could be wrong with the origins (though I know the origin of children communing was very early), so could you provide your source for that? That said, even western sources admit that stopping infant communion in the west was in the 12th century.

http://catholicbridge.com/orthodox/why_cant_babies_receive_eucharist.php

mark46 · Jan 21, 2016

MKJ said:
Mark, I have to ask if you choose to read things into posts deliberately. I've never suggested that education is a bad thing.

You yourself have said that the parents are NOT interested in education - they need to be bullied into it by making it a requirement to have the sacrament, and then they often are not seen at church much afterward. That is - they have a sense that the objective aspect of the sacrament needs to get done without a strong feeling about the other aspects of discipleship that we would expect to go with it. I would suggest there is a somewhat similar attitude to the Eucharist in many Catholic parishes - hence the exodus that often follows distribution.

It's not a criticism from me so much as an observation - I have heard it as a criticism, however, from a great many Catholics who despair about getting kids and parents really interested and invested in education and even just weekly participation. That's a problem in many denominations, some more than others, but the solution of requiring it for kids to be confirmed is a solution more often seen in Catholic parishes. I'm not sure how successful it's really been though, the kids go, but often that's the end of the line.

OK, let me explore a bit further.

Yes, the parents are bullied into their children going to classes through confirmation. In that time, the parents are also bullied into taking their children to Church. It is thought by educators that this is better than not giving the children and young parents this exposure to the Church. In this time, many children grow in their faith. As has been the case in the US for ages, children often now evangelize their parents. Also, some of the parents become better exposed to the Church as they are part of various youth groups, including helping in education.

Yes, of course, many children and parents leave after confirmation. The educators in the US find the situation preferable to parents and children leaving after baptism. Baptist and non-denominational folks have a different approach. Children are expected to be in youth groups into their teens, when curiously enough they come forward and become part of their church. We can this last initiation rite "confirmation"; Baptists call it "baptism". And Baptists are starting to have naming or welcoming ceremonies for infants. Here on CF, we often get caught up in the details of theology. That is not what happens on the ground, in the local churches. We are communities taking our best shot at welcoming our children into the faith, and preparing them to face the world. As yes, when they leave for college, they will face the world, and often not come back to the church of their youth.

In the US, we have our ways. The rest of the world has different ways. The practical approaches of our churches are very similar. We have 1/3 or more of our adult going to church on a given weekend. For those in the Philippines, this is terrible. For those in Western Europe, Australia, New Zealand and Canada, they wonder how we have so many participating.

I am NOT one who thinks that the US where Christianity is dead because we have so many church denominations. Rather, I compare us to others, and see that perhaps our approach does indeed work. We are a nation of seekers. Yes, many have examined their faith and left the churches. Are there really fewer folks in the churches than 100 years ago. Do we understand the faith less than they did. Personally, I do NOT think so. We are very confused at the nostalgic period after WWII when so many were in our churches, blissful and not examining anything. I was alive then. I remember. I much prefer the 21st Century and its approach, built on freedom and respect of those from all races, creeds, and faith communities. We don't have a state Church, and IMHO have been much better for that choice.

Anhelyna · Jan 21, 2016

May I throw another situation in to this thread - and I feel it does have some bearing on the original topic - that of the child who is handicapped - be it a physical or other developmental handicap.

I've heard it said [ more than once and sometimes by clergy ] that "Oh they are innocents - they will never commit sin and will not need Communion - indeed as they will not have the understanding of Whom they Receive , we cannot actually put them forward for First Confession and First Communion "

Nowadays most Latin Dioceses do have some form of Special Education for these children and young adults and they do usually Receive them - possibly at a later age.

Do other Church Groups do this ?

~Anastasia~ · Jan 21, 2016

I can't speak broadly, but as you might imagine such children in our Church are treated the same as any others.

They are baptized and receive the Eucharist. Whether or not they Confess depends on their ability and the priest. They are brought into the Liturgy just like anyone else, taught to behave if possible, and given things to occupy them if they need it, taken out for a break if need be. Allowed to take part in community efforts with simple jobs if they are able.

They are simply treated no differently from anyone else, as far as I can see. We have such children in our parish right now.

Anhelyna · Jan 21, 2016

We are the same as you, in this respect Anastasia - I was wondering more about the Churches in the Anglican Communion and the others

mark46 · Jan 21, 2016

Anhelyna said:
We are the same as you, in this respect Anastasia - I was wondering more about the Churches in the Anglican Communion and the others

In the Episcopal Church, all baptized Christians are welcomed to the Lord's Table. This, of course, includes the mentally handicapped. There are usually are caretakers during most services, for all that have such need.

MKJ · Jan 22, 2016

Anhelyna said:
We are the same as you, in this respect Anastasia - I was wondering more about the Churches in the Anglican Communion and the others

There aren't any barriers to children or adults who have handicaps receiving the Eucharist. And I've never heard with issues around confirmation either.

It's more common now for some people to just never bother being confirmed, and I can see where that might lead to a decision by parents not to bother when there would be complications.

MKJ · Jan 22, 2016

All4Christ said:
Where did you hear that the current practice of the west is the older tradition? In the fourth century Apostolic Confessions, it provides the rubric for children to receive. I could be wrong with the origins (though I know the origin of children communing was very early), so could you provide your source for that? That said, even western sources admit that stopping infant communion in the west was in the 12th century.

http://catholicbridge.com/orthodox/why_cant_babies_receive_eucharist.php

Confirmation by the bishop directly is the older practice. When that became impractical, the east delegated it to the priest. The west continued to have the bishop come, but not present for every baptism.

MKJ · Jan 22, 2016

mark46 said:
OK, let me explore a bit further.

Yes, the parents are bullied into their children going to classes through confirmation. In that time, the parents are also bullied into taking their children to Church. It is thought by educators that this is better than not giving the children and young parents this exposure to the Church. In this time, many children grow in their faith. As has been the case in the US for ages, children often now evangelize their parents. Also, some of the parents become better exposed to the Church as they are part of various youth groups, including helping in education.

Yes, of course, many children and parents leave after confirmation. The educators in the US find the situation preferable to parents and children leaving after baptism. Baptist and non-denominational folks have a different approach. Children are expected to be in youth groups into their teens, when curiously enough they come forward and become part of their church. We can this last initiation rite "confirmation"; Baptists call it "baptism". And Baptists are starting to have naming or welcoming ceremonies for infants. Here on CF, we often get caught up in the details of theology. That is not what happens on the ground, in the local churches. We are communities taking our best shot at welcoming our children into the faith, and preparing them to face the world. As yes, when they leave for college, they will face the world, and often not come back to the church of their youth.

In the US, we have our ways. The rest of the world has different ways. The practical approaches of our churches are very similar. We have 1/3 or more of our adult going to church on a given weekend. For those in the Philippines, this is terrible. For those in Western Europe, Australia, New Zealand and Canada, they wonder how we have so many participating.

I am NOT one who thinks that the US where Christianity is dead because we have so many church denominations. Rather, I compare us to others, and see that perhaps our approach does indeed work. We are a nation of seekers. Yes, many have examined their faith and left the churches. Are there really fewer folks in the churches than 100 years ago. Do we understand the faith less than they did. Personally, I do NOT think so. We are very confused at the nostalgic period after WWII when so many were in our churches, blissful and not examining anything. I was alive then. I remember. I much prefer the 21st Century and its approach, built on freedom and respect of those from all races, creeds, and faith communities. We don't have a state Church, and IMHO have been much better for that choice.

I think the problem with this approach is that it is using something as leverage that in the end becomes a problem in itself.

That is - the attitude to the sacrament is what makes parents, who otherwise might not bother, respond to the pressure to bring their kids. But ultimately it is that attitude that means parents don't really take in or understand how the sacraments are meant to be lived out, daily and in the community of faith. And whatever is said to the kids in the classes, 99% of the time they take in what their parents model for them, not what they see in an hour or so a week sitting in a class.

All4Christ · Jan 22, 2016

MKJ said:
Confirmation by the bishop directly is the older practice. When that became impractical, the east delegated it to the priest. The west continued to have the bishop come, but not present for every baptism.

Ah thank you for the clarification. My bad with not reading the post you quoted more carefully.

I guess it would be accurate then to say that the West kept the bishop there for chrismation (confirmation) yet eliminated the practice on infant communion and separated the timing of confirmation from baptism. The East kept the early practice of infant communion and the timing of performing the chrismation and baptism together, by allowing the priest to be an extension of the bishop (when using chrism blessed by him).

So, I guess it is a matter of opinion on which practice is older when looking at the entire sacrament of baptism, chrismation and communion. The East has a higher emphasis on the unity of Christian Initiation into the Church (baptism, chrismation, Eucharist) and an emphasis on all baptized members being fully initiated into the church no matter the age, while the West places higher importance on the Bishop being present to act as the guarantor.

That said, I see what you meant more now. Thanks again for clarifying.

AphroditeGoneAwry · Jan 22, 2016

~Anastasia~ said:
Jesus said to "Let the little children come unto Me ... the Kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."

Considering that in our Church, to fail to receive communion is to basically excommunicate oneself, why would we excommunicate our children?

And considering that we hold the Eucharist to be the Body and Blood of Christ, why would we deny His sustenance to our children?

Dude. Why would you call it 'pedo-communion'. That conjures up some weird images...

Albion · Jan 22, 2016

AphroditeGoneAwry said:
Dude. Why would you call it 'pedo-communion'. That conjures up some weird images...

It's a commonly used term (most often spelled "Paedocommunion" or "Paedo-communion").

~Anastasia~ · Jan 22, 2016

AphroditeGoneAwry said:
Dude. Why would you call it 'pedo-communion'. That conjures up some weird images...

I didn't, actually?

But the proper term is paedo-communion or pedo-communion. It means communion for children. The prefix paedo/pedo means "pertaining to children".

I'm not sure what sort of weird images it conjures up for you, but that's the word.

Pedo-Communion

Contributor

Contributor

† Handmaid of God †

Contributor

Contributor

Handmaid of God

Contributor

✙ The Handmaid of God Laura ✙

Well-Known Member

Handmaid of God

† Handmaid of God †

Handmaid of God

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

✙ The Handmaid of God Laura ✙

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

† Handmaid of God †

Similar threads