Communion question

In the Archdiocese here the order of the Sacraments of Initiation have indeed been re-ordered.

Children are Baptised in infancy and Confirmed about the age of eight or nine [ depends on numbers ] then a few months later make First Confession and after that Firstt Communion.

In the Parish I was in - the Confirmation was about November and then First Communions the following May.

Gwendolyn said:

I just don't think our current set-up is best. It encourages a great deal of misinformation and faulty theology to run rampant. For that reason, confirmation/chrismation is often referred to as a "sacrament in search of theology" in the theological world. By keeping the out-of-order Sacraments of initiation the way they are now, we lose a lot. Eucharist is not supposed to precede confirmation/chrismation. It is supposed to follow.

For example, we do not view candidates for reception into full communion as Catholics already just because they are baptised (in another Christian church). They cannot just decide to go up to communion one Sunday during RCIA because they feel like it. They have to be chrismated before they may receive the Eucharist. Why is it different for everyone else? It's an inconsistency in our practice.

This is a big issue for me and it might be something I work on for my master's thesis. Early Christianity was very clear - the three belong together, in the original order. The situation that we have now isn't "fine" and it isn't "ideal". But we cope with it until something happens to allow us to move back to the original.

Click to expand...

interesting thoughts, and a very good point

Anhelyna said:

In the Archdiocese here the order of the Sacraments of Initiation have indeed been re-ordered.

Children are Baptised in infancy and Confirmed about the age of eight or nine [ depends on numbers ] then a few months later make First Confession and after that Firstt Communion.

In the Parish I was in - the Confirmation was about November and then First Communions the following May.

Click to expand...

here we always had a re-celebration if the first communion or confirmation... at the age of 8

Gwendolyn;:

As the Church grew, especially after the edict of Milan, the bishops could not be present at every single baptism, chrismation, etc., so initially the bishops allowed the Eucharist to be celebrated by priests.

Click to expand...

I don't believe this is correct.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia;

The Christian priesthood

In the New Testamentbishops and priests are, according to Catholic teaching, the sole bearers of the priesthood, the former enjoying the fullness of the priesthood (summus sacerdos s. primi ordinis), while the presbyters are simple priests (simplex sacerdos s. secundi ordinis). The deacon, on the other hand, is a mere attendant of the priest, with no priestly powers. Omitting all special treatment of the bishop and the deacon, we here confine our attention primarily to the presbyterate, since the term "priest" without qualification is now taken to signify the presbyter.

Click to expand...

By definition, only a priest can offer sacrifice, and hence in Christian tradition, the sacrifice is the Mass.

Jim

JimR-OCDS said:

Gwendolyn;:



I don't believe this is correct.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia;



By definition, only a priest can offer sacrifice, and hence in Christian tradition, the sacrifice is the Mass.

Jim

Click to expand...

All bishops were priests before being elevated... can bishops not celebrate? If so, I didn't know that.

All I know is what I was taught in two different courses on Sacramental theology/history - initially, in the early Church, it was the bishops who presided. The Fracturing rite comes from that - the bishop would preside at the main church and celebrate the Eucharist there, and then a "runner" would take the pieces of the Eucharist out to the other churches with the priests. There is a Saint who was martyred this way. Can't remembered his name, but will look it up - while he was transporting the Eucharist from the main church, he ran into a group of non-Christians who demanded that he give them the Eucharist (not so they could eat it, but so they could defile it). He refused, and they beat him to death... but when they turned his body over, the Eucharist had disappeared.

What I was trying to say was, once the Church grew and grew, this dynamic was no longer possible and became impractical, so the priests themselves celebrated the Eucharist without the bishop instead of waiting for the "runners". The bishop delegated that power to the priests.

Maybe I was taught wrong - it is entirely possible, I do concede - but I was taught by priests, so I just figured I'd trust them... but priests can be wrong...

But you know, the Apostles were the first bishops... they handed their teaching down and all...

I have noticed a lot of western christians, especially catholics, down play western traditions in favor for eastern traditions

Click to expand...

I personally love our Western traditions just saying.

Gwendolyn said:

There is a Saint who was martyred this way. Can't remembered his name, but will look it up - while he was transporting the Eucharist from the main church, he ran into a group of non-Christians who demanded that he give them the Eucharist (not so they could eat it, but so they could defile it). He refused, and they beat him to death... but when they turned his body over, the Eucharist had disappeared.

Click to expand...

I know, slightly off topic, but I hope you do remember the name. It seems that I too remember that story, but have forgotten the name. I can't even remember where I first heard the story.

AMDG said:

I know, slightly off topic, but I hope you do remember the name. It seems that I too remember that story, but have forgotten the name. I can't even remember where I first heard the story.

Click to expand...

His name was St. Tarcissus. He is not a very well-known Saint.

I have always wondered this too. I would really like for my son to receive Jesus in the Sacrament, but he will wait until he is seven or eight when he has been confirmed because this is the desire of our Bishops. I don't believe that understanding is a requirement for communion. Reception of grace does not require understanding, rather grace leads to understanding - it is a gift of the Spirit. But I do believe that God gave us Bishops as a gift, and their authority is a great gift. So I will trust that their decisions are for the best in this matter.

In the case of a small parish, the bishop may choose to delegate and allow the parish priest to chrismate/confirm the faithful there. My parish is small and that is the case with us. Just had a confirmation of five boys not too long ago. Also, let us not forget that it is usually the priest who brings all of the catechumens and candidates into the Church via chrismation/confirmation on Holy Saturday.

In some cases, you, as a parent, are able to request that your child receive confirmation/chrismation and Eucharist earlier. If you are in a situation like I mentioned, with a small parish where the bishop has chosen to delegate to the parish priest, then you are able to request that your child be baptised, confirmed, and communed at the same time (or sooner than is the "norm"). It is up to you. In a larger parish, this might not often be possible due to logistics.

I just thought that bit of info was interesting when I learned it. It makes me happy.

Gwendolyn;

All bishops were priests before being elevated... can bishops not celebrate? If so, I didn't know that.

Click to expand...

Once a priest always a priest. A Bishop is a priest.

From what I learned when I was in discernment for the diaconate, it was the deacons who brought Communion to the communities where no priest was present to celebrate the Mass.


Jim

I actually like the idea of receiving Communion at a certain age, when you're old enough to understand what it is it can be a pretty special memorable event.. (preparing for it, etc)