Can I ask a question about sin and baptism?

[Benedicta00]

Michelle, please define "perfect", because if you mean what I think you mean we are not in agreement.

John.

They have been freed from original sin and they have no mortal sin on their soul, and no venal sins either. They aren’t immaculately conceived where they have no concupiscence, but baptized infants are perfect because they have been reconciled to God through Christ and they have no sin. Liken to a perfected saint. What I mean is they are saints.

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

They have been freed from original sin and they have no mortal sin on their soul, and no venal sins either. They aren’t immaculately conceived where they have no concupiscence, but baptized infants are perfect because they have been reconciled to God through Christ and they have no sin. Liken to a perfected saint. What I mean is they are saints.

I agree. And they can't actually sin until they can reason, because a freewill choice requires reason to mean anything.

 

[Benedicta00]

This is true. But the Holy Eucharist is so much more than just for remission of sins. It unites us with God. "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me and I in him" (John 6:56). Also the Eucharist draws us together into the people of God, His Church. It means we all become one with God, and one with each other. "Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of one bread." (1 Cor 10:17). As a mother, I desire for my children to participate fully and experience this oneness in Christ.

I agree 100% but the Latin Rite is considering St. Paul’s words, we must be able to discern the body and blood of Christ, know who and what we are receiving. We give it to children when they are at an age of reason. The EO do not agree that baptism does sanctify a person completely? Do you think the sacrament is somehow incomplete with out communion? Jesus says in Revelations that we are to keep our baptismal garment clean and do not soil them. Communion is for the strength and grace not to fall and for the forgiveness when we do fall, babies do not exactly struggle with that. Baptism is the life of grace, being divinized, they are complete with baptism but as they grow they will need to water the seeds with grace.

 

[Benedicta00]

I agree, Photini!

My Godmother has told me that she has witnessed a lot of Eucharistic miracles when the little babies with bad infections received Holy Communion and were instantly healed. An Orthodox Priest wrote that many children in his parish, since becoming Orthodox, are not sickly anymore. This Orthodox Priest converted to Orthodoxy along with his entire parish.

The Byzantine Catholics allow their babies to receive all the Sacraments of Initiation just like the Orthodox: Baptism, Confirmation and Communion. This was the way it was pre-schism.

P.S. To be excommunicated means that one is not allowed to receive Communion. (It also implies not being able to receive all the other sacraments and services offered by the Church). However, if a person in the Orthodox Church doesn't receive Holy Communion for three Sundays in a row -- except for illness -- then he is technically considered excommunicated according to an ancient Holy Canon of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and he must go to confession before being allowed to receive Holy Communion. A Melkite Greek Catholic Priest told me this and showed me a copy of this Holy Canon -- and he enforced that canon.

Elizabeth,

The Latin rite Catholics do not think there is something wrong with what the Eastern rite and EO Churches do. As I have said before, I believe the EO Churches sometimes confuses what is Big T tradition with what is little t Tradition. You may think everything is sacred Tradition, I don’t know but I do not think this was a sacred Tradition (giving or not giving communion to babies) I think it is little t tradition. Especially seeing how the very first Christians were adults, they were no cradle Catholics then all converts were adults.

 

[Benedicta00]

PS Chanter,

One is excommunicated when there is unrepentant sin involved, this is not the case of babies. They are not forbidden communion because they would be receiving in condemnation of themselves. So to apply this to babies is really far fetched.

 

[Polycarp1]

I agree 100% but the Latin Rite is considering St. Paul’s words, we must be able to discern the body and blood of Christ, know who and what we are receiving. We give it to children when they are at an age of reason. The EO do not agree that baptism does sanctify a person completely? Do you think the sacrament is somehow incomplete with out communion? Jesus says in Revelations that we are to keep our baptismal garment clean and do not soil them. Communion is for the strength and grace not to fall and for the forgiveness when we do fall, babies do not exactly struggle with that. Baptism is the life of grace, being divinized, they are complete with baptism but as they grow they will need to water the seeds with grace.

A couple of comments, not to debate but to try to advance the discussion -- it would be my assumption that, like baptism, the "discernment of the body and blood" is a normative, not a mandative requirement: one who desires baptism but who never has access to a baptized Christian and water is deemed baptized by the "baptism of desire." I'd understand the Pauline stricture as "have such reverence for the Blessed Sacrament as, if you are able, prayerfully discern the body and blood in it," not, "if you are not capable of discerning the body and blood, you are barred from the gift of grace."

Too, Christ commanded two, and the Scriptures provide for, seven sacraments. They are not all exclusively for the forgiveness of sins -- that puts too much a Protestant salvationist focus on them. Baptism is primarily the act of adoption by which God puts to death by drowning our old sinful life and makes us a part of the Mystical Body of Christ and His sons and daughters by adoption and grace. The Eucharist nourishes and cleanses us, as the intake of food and the act of own our blood on our body serves to do physically. Chrismation indelibly marks us as the possessions of the Crucified One, anointed to be His hands and feet and mouths and ears in the world about us. Confirmation strengthens us to perform the work He has given us to do. All of them have the secondary function of the eradication of sin, that which separates us from Him -- but in much the sense in which applying alcohol to a wound has the primary function of killing germs and only the secondary function of cleansing the wound of dirt.

 

[Benedicta00]

A couple of comments, not to debate but to try to advance the discussion -- it would be my assumption that, like baptism, the "discernment of the body and blood" is a normative, not a mandative requirement: one who desires baptism but who never has access to a baptized Christian and water is deemed baptized by the "baptism of desire." I'd understand the Pauline stricture as "have such reverence for the Blessed Sacrament as, if you are able, prayerfully discern the body and blood in it," not, "if you are not capable of discerning the body and blood, you are barred from the gift of grace."

Too, Christ commanded two, and the Scriptures provide for, seven sacraments. They are not all exclusively for the forgiveness of sins -- that puts too much a Protestant salvationist focus on them. Baptism is primarily the act of adoption by which God puts to death by drowning our old sinful life and makes us a part of the Mystical Body of Christ and His sons and daughters by adoption and grace. The Eucharist nourishes and cleanses us, as the intake of food and the act of own our blood on our body serves to do physically. Chrismation indelibly marks us as the possessions of the Crucified One, anointed to be His hands and feet and mouths and ears in the world about us. Confirmation strengthens us to perform the work He has given us to do. All of them have the secondary function of the eradication of sin, that which separates us from Him -- but in much the sense in which applying alcohol to a wound has the primary function of killing germs and only the secondary function of cleansing the wound of dirt.

I agree but none of this is really my point. My point is it isn’t wrong to not give it or to give it. It is a choice and the Latin rite reserves the choice to not give it until reason. If the Church wanted to give it to my babies at baptism, I wouldn’t have a problem with it.

Besides me receiving communion when I am pregnant I believe sanctifies the child also. We could get into that debate, how can a parent receive communion while they are carrying the child, the child has not been baptized yet, so if they also benefit from communion, how can they, they aren’t baptized?

We choose to not give it until the age of reason, it isn’t like we are damming the children if we don’t. If the east wants to give it, fine but don’t make it sound like we are going against Christ by not giving it. Christ was silent on the salvation and status of baby’s soul frankly so neither Church can say what is definitive. This is what I mean by them confusing what it and isn’t sacred Tradition that is to be obeyed. They are mistaken custom for sacred Tradition, IMO. I don’t think it is bad but it isn’t like the Catholic Church is up to no good because we have our own customs.

 

[ChoirDir]

We could get into that debate, how can a parent receive communion while they are carrying the child, the child has not been baptized yet

Brings up another thought, in the Catholic Church after a pregnant woman delivers is she allowed back in the church? In the Orthodox faith, she must be churched first before she can come back to Liturgy.
On the OP, the entrance of an infant into the Orthodox faith involves 3 sacraments, Baptism, Chrismation, Communion. These can occur all at once but usually, the Baptism and Chrismation are done separately and Communion is taken at the first Divine Liturgy afterwards. It should be noted that Catholics Baptize, then wait 5-6 years for Communion then another 7-8 years for Confirmation. So the whole process takes about 13 years compared to 1 to 2 days in Orthodoxy

 

[Polycarp1]

We choose to not give it until the age of reason, it isn’t like we are damming the children if we don’t. If the east wants to give it, fine but don’t make it sound like we are going against Christ by not giving it. Christ was silent on the salvation and status of baby’s soul frankly so neither Church can say what is definitive. This is what I mean by them confusing what it and isn’t sacred Tradition that is to be obeyed. They are mistaken custom for sacred Tradition, IMO. I don’t think it is bad but it isn’t like the Catholic Church is up to no good because we have our own customs.

No disagreement. I was merely looking into the reasoning behind the varying customs regarding the sacraments, to see where I could find truth in them. As it happens, we chrismate at Baptism (or chrismate separately those baptized Christians entering the church from a tradition that does not chrismate) and confirm at age 15 or so -- so our custom is different from both Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

Brings up another thought, in the Catholic Church after a pregnant woman delivers is she allowed back in the church? In the Orthodox faith, she must be churched first before she can come back to Liturgy.

How long is the normal wait between childbirth and "churching of women"? Before converting to Episcopalianism, I was raised in a Methodist church that used this ritual once, in response to the wish of the new mother, so I have always been curious about it. And what is the liturgical purpose of it?

 

[ChoirDir]

The Rite of Churching
Together with being baptized and chrismated, the new-born child is also "churched." The rite of churching imitates the offering of male children to the temple according to the law of the Old Testament, particularly the offering of Christ on the fortieth day after his birth (Luke 2:22). Because of this fact, baptism in the Orthodox tradition came to be prescribed for. the fortieth day or thereabouts. In the New Testament Church both male and female children are formally presented to God in the Church with special prayers at this time.

Also at this time, once more in imitation of Old Testament practice, the mother of the new-born child is also "churched." Here we have the specific example of the purification ritual of Jesus' mother Mary (Lk 2:22). In the Orthodox tradition the churching of the mother is her re-entry into the assembly of God's people after her participation with God in the holy act of birth and after her separation from the Liturgy during her confinement. Thus, the mother is blessed to enter once more into communion with the mystery of Christ's Body and Blood in the Divine Liturgy of the Church from which she has been necessarily absent.

The new mother should be churched before the baptism of her infant so that she can be present at the sacramental entrance of her child into the Kingdom of Christ. The official service book indicates that this should be done.

It is also the Orthodox tradition that the mysteries of baptism and chrismation, called officially "holy illumination," are fulfilled in the immediate reception by the "newly-enlightened" of Holy Communion in the eucharistic liturgy of the Church. This is the case with infants as well as adults.

 

[ChoirDir]

In regards to infant communion in the west I found this:

In the reign of Charlemagne an edict was published by a Council of Tours (813) prohibiting the reception by young children of Communion unless they were in danger of death (Zaccaria, Bibl. Rit., II, p. 161) and Odo, Bishop of Paris, renewed this prohibition in 1175.

 

[prodromos]

Especially seeing how the very first Christians were adults, they were no cradle Catholics then all converts were adults.

Whole families were baptised, not just the adults.

 

[Benedicta00]

Brings up another thought, in the Catholic Church after a pregnant woman delivers is she allowed back in the church? In the Orthodox faith, she must be churched first before she can come back to Liturgy.
On the OP, the entrance of an infant into the Orthodox faith involves 3 sacraments, Baptism, Chrismation, Communion. These can occur all at once but usually, the Baptism and Chrismation are done separately and Communion is taken at the first Divine Liturgy afterwards. It should be noted that Catholics Baptize, then wait 5-6 years for Communion then another 7-8 years for Confirmation. So the whole process takes about 13 years compared to 1 to 2 days in Orthodoxy

I have heard this and no, women are allowed to be present at the baptism and there is no “churching” necessary. They aren’t considered unclean.

Children are baptized and baptism brings sanctification. They aren’t incomplete beings because they have not had communion or confirmation. They do not have a sense of reasoning, they have no sin on their souls they simple at this stage in their existence do not need the graces that come from the other sacraments, As they grow they will but in this particular stage of their life the grace of baptism is sufficient.

 

[Benedicta00]

In regards to infant communion in the west I found this:

Okay and? Do you understand the point I am making? There is nothing wrong with giving it to them or not giving it to them. Apparently the EO must think there is something wrong with not giving it to them.

 

[Benedicta00]

Whole families were baptised, not just the adults.

Yes, I know but as you know there is no Tradition that says “infants” were being confirmed or communicated when they were baptized, this is my point.

 

[ChoirDir]

I know but as you know there is no Tradition that says “infants” were being confirmed or communicated when they were baptized, this is my point.

In the reign of Charlemagne an edict was published by a Council of Tours (813) prohibiting the reception by young children of Communion unless they were in danger of death (Zaccaria, Bibl. Rit., II, p. 161) and Odo, Bishop of Paris, renewed this prohibition in 1175.

The above quote shows that there was no age prohibition in the early Church. It was established in 813 and renewed in 1175. Furthermore

Still the custom died hard, for we find traces of it in Hugh of St. Victor (De Sacr., I, c. 20) and Martène (De Ant. Ecc. Rit., I bk., I, c. 15) alleges that it had not altogether disappeared in his own day.

This quote seems to show that at one time all 3 Sacraments were given together

The Fathers considered that the rites of initiation (baptism, confirmation, and the Holy Eucharist) were instituted by Christ, but they did not enter into any minute discussion as to the time, place, and manner of the institution, at least of the second of these rites. In examining the testimonies of the Fathers we should note that the word confirmation is not used to designate this sacrament during the first four centuries; but we meet with various other terms and phrases which quite clearly refer to it. Thus, it is styled "imposition of hands" (manuum impositio, cheirothesia), "unction", "chrism", "sealing", etc. Before the time of Tertullian the Fathers do not make any explicit mention of confirmation as distinct from baptism. The fact that the two sacraments were conferred together may account for this silence. Tertullian (De Bapt., vi) is the first to distinguish clearly the three acts of initiation: "After having come out of the laver, we are anointed thoroughly with a blessed unction [perungimur benedictâ unctione] according to the ancient rule . . . The unction runs bodily over us, but profits spiritually . . . . Next to this, the hand is laid upon us through the blessing, calling upon and inviting the Holy Spirit [dehinc manus imponitur per benedictionem advocans et invitans Spiriturn Sanctum]," Again (De resurr, carnis, n, 8): "The flesh is washed that the soul may be made stainless. The flesh is anointed [ungitur] that the soul may be consecrated. The flesh is sealed [signatur] that the soul may be fortified. The flesh is overshadowed by the imposition of hands that the soul may be illuminated by the Spirit, The flesh is fed by the Body and Blood of Christ that the soul may be fattened of God." And (Adv, Marcion., i, n. 14): "But He [Christ], indeed even at the present time, neither rejected the water of the Creator with which He washes clean His own, nor the oil with which He anoints His own; . . . nor the bread with which He makes present [repræsentat] His own very body, needing even in His own sacraments the beggarly elements of the Creator," Tertullian also tells how the devil, imitating the rites of Christian initiation, sprinkles some and signs them as his soldiers on the forehead (signat illic in frontibus milites suos -- De Præscript., xl).

So the West seems to have changed it to it's present day form.

 

[Benedicta00]

The above quote shows that there was no age prohibition in the early Church. It was established in 813 and renewed in 1175. Furthermore This quote seems to show that at one time all 3 Sacraments were given together
So the West seems to have changed it to it's present day form.

And my point from the beginning is it can. There is a difference, at least to us, between what it apostolic sacred Tradition and tradition customs. Like, one time it was brought up about us changing the directing of the sign of the cross. Some thing’s aren’t “T” Big T apostolic sacred Tradition.

If the east wants to give a three, more power to you, the Church has NOT looked down on this at all, the Church used to do this herself. There is nothing wrong with doing it or not doing it.

 

[Benedicta00]

Communion of Children

In order to get some insight into the historical aspect of this subject it will be useful to dwell upon (1) the ancient practice, and (2) the present discipline of the Church in regard to the Communion of children.

I. ANCIENT PRACTICE

It is now well established that in the early days of Christianity it was not uncommon for infants to receive Communion immediately after they were baptized. Among others St. Cyprian (Lib. de Lapsis, c. xxv) makes reference to the practice. In the East the custom was pretty universal, and even to this day exists in some places, but in the West infant Communion was not so general. Here, moreover, it was restricted to the occasions of baptism and dangerous illness. Probably it originated in a mistaken notion of the absolute necessity of the Blessed Eucharist for salvation, founded on the words of St. John (vi, 54). In the reign of Charlemagne an edict was published by a Council of Tours (813) prohibiting the reception by young children of Communion unless they were in danger of death (Zaccaria, Bibl. Rit., II, p. 161) and Odo, Bishop of Paris, renewed this prohibition in 1175. Still the custom died hard, for we find traces of it in Hugh of St. Victor (De Sacr., I, c. 20) and Martène (De Ant. Ecc. Rit., I bk., I, c. 15) alleges that it had not altogether disappeared in his own day. The manner of Communicating infants was by dipping the finger in the consecrated chalice and then applying it to the tongue of the child. This would seem to imply that it was only the Precious Blood that was administered, but evidence is not wanting to show that the other Consecrated Species was also given in similar circumstances (cf. Sebastiano Giribaldi, Op. Mor., I, c. 72). That infants and children not yet come to the use of reason may not only validly but even fruitfully receive the Blessed Eucharist is now the universally received opinion, but it is opposed to Catholic teaching to hold that this sacrament is necessary for their salvation (Council of Trent, Sess. XXI, can. iv).

II. PRESENT DISCIPLINE

The existing legislation with regard to the Communion of children has been definitely settled by the Fourth Lateran Council, which was afterwards confirmed by the authority of the Council of Trent. According to its provisions children may not be admitted to the Blessed Eucharist until they have attained to years of discretion, but when this period is reached then they are bound to receive this sacrament. When may they be said to have attained the age of discretion? In the best-supported view of theologians this phrase means, not the attainment of a definite number of years, but rather the arrival at a certain stage in mental development, when children become able to discern the Eucharistic from ordinary bread, to realize in some measure the dignity and excellence of the Sacrament of the Altar, to believe in the Real Presence, and adore Christ under the sacramental veils. De Lugo (De Euch., disp. xiii, n. 36, Ben. XIV, De Syn., vii) says that if children are observed to assist at Mass with devotion and attention it is a sign that they are come to this discretion.

Thus it is seen that a keener religious sense, so to speak, is demanded for the reception of Communion than for confession. Moreover, it is agreed that children in danger of death ought to be admitted to Communion even though they may not have the same degree of fitness that would be required in ordinary circumstances. In answer to a question as to whether a certain episcopal ordinance should be upheld that fixed a definite age-limit under which children could not be admitted to First Communion, the Congregation of the Council replied in the affirmative, provided, however, that those children adjudged to have reached the discretion required by the Councils of Lateran and Trent might not be excluded (21 July, 1888). This reply bears out the interpretation already given of "the years of discretion" and it may be said in the words of the Catechism of the Council of Trent (pt. II, c. iv, q. 63) that "no one can better determine the age at which the sacred mysteries should be given to young children than their parents and confessor".

I wonder why the whole in context article was left out?? Well anyway, i hope this sheds light.

 

[MariaRegina]

Thanks, Michelle,

Note how the Byzantine Catholics preserve the ancient and Holy Tradition of giving Holy Communion to the infants. The Orthodox view all of our traditions as Holy Traditions because they are from the Holy Apostles. Why should we change things that the Apostles have always done?

This Latin Catholic article does show that the ancient One Holy Orthodox and Catholic Church did give Holy Communion to the infants, but by 813 AD the custom of communicating the infants was unfortunately dying out in the West. Also by that time, the theologial differences in the East and West were so great, that the Patriarch of Constantinople had stopped commemorating the Bishop of Rome during the Divine Liturgy.

The language barrier, enforced priestly celibacy (which was not apostolic), use of unleaved bread, the filioque, the new doctrine of purgatory and indulgences, increasing papal powers, and papal interference in the patriarchates of the East were just some of the reasons why the two churches finally separated.

 

[Benedicta00]

Thanks, Michelle,

Note how the Byzantine Catholics preserve the ancient and Holy Tradition of giving Holy Communion to the infants. The Orthodox view all of our traditions as Holy Traditions because they are from the Holy Apostles. Why should we change things that the Apostles have always done?

This Latin Catholic article does show that the ancient One Holy Orthodox and Catholic Church did give Holy Communion to the infants, but by 813 AD the custom of communicating the infants was unfortunately dying out in the West. Also by that time, the theologial differences in the East and West were so great, that the Patriarch of Constantinople had stopped commemorating the Bishop of Rome during the Divine Liturgy.

The language barrier, enforced priestly celibacy (which was not apostolic), use of unleaved bread, the filioque, the new doctrine of purgatory and indulgences, increasing papal powers, and papal interference in the patriarchates of the East were just some of the reasons why the two churches finally separated.

Elizabeth,

Notice how it is a discipline.

I have already made my point so I am not going to keep repeating. The Church does not put down the east for doing it, so I don’t think the east should put us down for not doing it. Read the explanation again, the answer is clear. If you like the all the "t"raditions, then by all means, knock yourself out.

Obviously the Catholic Church does not have that big a problem with you keeping all the eastern traditions, look at the Eastern Rite Catholics, who are in union with Rome. They returned and still practice the eastern traditions so they must understand disciplines and not take issue with them. If we are out to change the ancient faith then how come the Eastern Rite Catholics still have kept the same practices as the EO?