Communion question

[AllForJesus]

I know there must be a valid reason why you wait to have first Communion but i don't know it.

The Eastren Catholic Church have baptism and first communion same day... So bapstized infants will have The Body and Blood of Christ.

I realised as well that even the grown up who convert to the Catholic faith wait a lot to have communion... I am right? and why? (As i read through Acts it is clear that when someone is baptised they go and share in the Communion with the others...)

Please don't get me wrong that i am saying the Eastern way is better... I just want to understand your way and i am sure it will be sound and valid but not in my knowlege now.

 

[oldfashionedbelle]

Well I was always taught that rather than giving the eucharist to infants, we wait until the child is old enough to better understand what is happening, that they are truly receiving the body and blood of Christ. If an adult were to join the church they could go through RCIA it starts in the fall and then by Easter they will have completed the RCIA program and celebrated Baptism, First Reconciliation and First Communion, and Confirmation and are fully initiated as full members of the Catholic Church. I attended Catholic school I remember celebrating First Reconciliation in first grade and First Communion in Second, this year I will be confirmed when I finish the RCIA program because when I would have been confirmed Sophomore year in high school I instead turned away from the faith because I didn't fully understand everything I needed to in order to want to become a full member, I was misled about many things, and now that I DO understand I am ready and very excited to finish the process.

 

[AllForJesus]

Well I was always taught that rather than giving the eucharist to infants, we wait until the child is old enough to better understand what is happening, that they are truly receiving the body and blood of Christ. If an adult were to join the church they could go through RCIA it starts in the fall and then by Easter they will have completed the RCIA program and celebrated Baptism, First Reconciliation and First Communion, and Confirmation and are fully initiated as full members of the Catholic Church. I attended Catholic school I remember celebrating First Reconciliation in first grade and First Communion in Second, this year I will be confirmed when I finish the RCIA program because when I would have been confirmed Sophomore year in high school I instead turned away from the faith because I didn't fully understand everything I needed to in order to want to become a full member, I was misled about many things, and now that I DO understand I am ready and very excited to finish the process.

So the reason is to better understand what is happening...?

 

[prodromos]

It is actually because in the West only the bishop does chrismations, while in the East the priest performs chrismations with chrism blessed by the bishop.

Since the bishop could not be running around to every single infant baptism to chrismate the newly illumined children, they held off from doing chrismations until a large number could be done all at once. The age of reason explanation is a pious fiction which was developed to provide an excuse for doing things that way.

John

 

[AMDG]

Yes. It has something to do with Jesus' command "Believe and be Baptized." Well, the "free gift of Baptism" part of the dual command has been accomplished, so what is left is the "Believe" part. It seems that the Western Rite of the One Catholic Church has chosen to emphasize the command by requiring the "first teachers of the child" (the parents) first ensure the teaching so understanding is also there. Afterall, there needs to be understanding of what a person is receiving in the Eucharist. (That is not to say that the Eastern branch of the One Catholic Church doesn't also follow the command--just that it's in a different way.)

BTW, I believe I actually read this explanation in the CCC. Unfortunately I don't have easy access to my CCC this morning. (It's still early for me.)

 

[Rhamiel]

if you are an adult, you are baptised and have first communion at the same time I am fairly sure

 

[AllForJesus]

Yes. It has something to do with Jesus' command "Believe and be Baptized." Well, the "free gift of Baptism" part of the dual command has been accomplished, so what is left is the "Believe" part. It seems that the Western Rite of the One Catholic Church has chosen to emphasize the command by requiring the "first teachers of the child" (the parents) first ensure the teaching so understanding is also there. Afterall, there needs to be understanding of what a person is receiving in the Eucharist. (That is not to say that the Eastern branch of the One Catholic Church doesn't also follow the command--just that it's in a different way.)

BTW, I believe I actually read this explanation in the CCC. Unfortunately I don't have easy access to my CCC this morning. (It's still early for me.)

ok... If this it then fine

 

[benedictaoo]

AFJ, it's becuase of our reason and conscious has not been formed yet. Baptism is all a baby needs to have eternal life if he/she should die before the age of reason and them truly knowing right and wrong.

We figure around age 7 the kids begin to know the difference between right ad wrong and when they choose good over evil. So it's at that age they make their first confession and receive Communion becuase they need that special grace now.

It's kind of like a, "welcome to the real world" type of thing...

at age 14 they were confirmed and that is when they take responsibility for their own faith now... but the bishops moved confirmation to age 16-17 now becuase kids weren't ready for that commitment.

 

[Memento Mori]

Since the bishop could not be running around to every single infant baptism to chrismate the newly illumined children, they held off from doing chrismations until a large number could be done all at once. The age of reason explanation is a pious fiction which was developed to provide an excuse for doing things that way.

It's not just "made up" considering it follows every other Catholic understanding of moral responsibility. You're looking at the legs without noticing the table.

 

[benedictaoo]

well, I'd love to know why the east thinks we need to commune babies who have no sin on their soul and how they can be confirmed to choose to follow Christ....

You can't get any more perfect a soul then a baptized baby. You can give it Communion but it does not need it and Paul said that we are to discern what we receive. babies can't do that.

 

[Gwendolyn]

Actually, prodomos is wholly correct.

This "age of reason" nonsense has seeped in from the protestant sects.

Here is what happened:

Bishops initially offered every Catholic the Sacraments of Initiation - baptism, chrismation, Eucharist.

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. Then baptism (also by deacons) and chrismation as well. In the East, this is still the practice - the original order of the Sacraments remains the same, unchanged. This best preserves the theology surrounding them - dying to self and rising in Christ through the waters of baptism, being sealed with the Holy Spirit, confirming what happened in baptism, and then being welcomed into the Body of Christ by receiving Him in the Eucharist.

In the West, we wanted to reserve chrismation for the bishop. Therefore, we were presented with a dilemma - tons of faithful, not as many bishops to administer the sacraments. Priests could celebrate the Eucharist, and priests/deacons could baptise. But what do you do if the bishop cannot be present to chrismate each person at their baptism?

Our solution was to separate the sacraments. In the middle ages, we developed a fondness for minimalism. What is the minimum requirement for baptism? Sprinkling water on the head. What is the latest that a person can be chrismated/confirmed? No later than 12 years, according to a papal document (cannot recall which atm, I'm at work on lunch). So that is what happened. Then you have a huge gap of Christians not being able to receive the Eucharist... so a concession was made to allow Eucharist before chrismation, so long as the person will indeed be chrismated/confirmed.

The "age of reason" has nothing to do with it.

And if anyone says that confirmation has something to do with understanding what is going on and accepting your responsibility as an adult Christian, I will scream. That is not true at all.

As for the Eucharist - "age of reason" does not apply, either. God isn't dependent upon our understanding. Why shouldn't an infant receive the Lord? Is the Eucharist not truly Christ Himself? Will He decide that His Eucharist should be less beneficial to a child simply before they cannot speak or walk yet? NO.

My priest put it like this: if a mouse gets into the Tabernacle, and eats a Host, does it receive the Lord? YES, because the Eucharist is truly Christ's Body, Blood, Soul, and divinity. However, does the mouse get any benefit from it, in terms of salvation? No, it's a mouse.

A human child would truly be receiving Christ and would be benefitting his/her own soul, regardless of how old they are. Sacraments do NOT depend on our own capacity to comprehend God, because we CANNOT fully comprehend God. They are free gifts from Him in order to aid us in achieving Salvation.

As an old priest - who taught me this class on sacramental theology - said to a student who insisted that understanding what a Sacrament means is necessary for receiving it, "Why WOULDN'T you want to baptise, confirm, and commune your child? Don't you want them to receive God's grace?"

We receive God's grace regardless of age when we partake of His Sacraments. It is folly to suggest otherwise.

 

[Anhelyna]

well, I'd love to know why the east thinks we need to commune babies who have no sin on their soul and how they can be confirmed to choose to follow Christ....

You can't get any more perfect a soul then a baptized baby. You can give it Communion but it does not need it and Paul said that we are to discern what we receive. babies can't do that.

Hmmm

Believe it or not - I was discussing this point with a Polish RC Priest while I was on Retreat .

It was Sunday lunchtime in the Monastery so we were talking .

Someone else had started the topic by saying was it correct that we ECs Communed children - and of course I answered 'Yes"

He was sitting beside me and told me roundly that I was wrong - babies and children could not Receive.

His jaw dropped when I asked if he believed that babies and young children should be given physical food to nurture them - his answer was of course 'Yes'.

My next point was -- were we given spiritual food when we receive the Holy Mysteries ?

his answer was again 'Yes '

So I then asked - should we give Spiritual Food to babies and young children to feed them spiritually ?

He looked at me and spluttered - the table more or less collapsed with everyone smiling .

The of course I got the usual comment that babies and children would not understand Who there were Receiving - to a point I agree BUT

Who are the first educators of children ? Their parents of course .

We Mums talk to our children while they are still in the womb and we tell them things , play music , pray with them .

As babies we talk to them all the time and we can teach them - indeed we do.

I have seen 2 year olds going forward for Communion - saying things like " we are going for Jesus " they do KNOW .

As to the age of reason 'thing' - this could rule out mentally handicapped people , and many of them do know right from wrong , so do Children - we teach them to know this .

All this left the Polish Priest spluttering and the rest of the table really enjoyed my very simple explanation .

OH - I was the only EC there - everyone else was Latin.

 

[benedictaoo]

let me ask you something... Are baptized babies going to hell if they don't recieve it and are confirmed?

i hope you would say no...

so it's not a matter of right and wrong, it's a matter of practically and preference. Neither side is wrong but it's the way each side prefers to do it for the reasons we both have stated. Both reasons are valid and have merit. I'm sad that priest who are far more educated in this then me would sputter and be caught off guard.

 

[Gwendolyn]

But why withhold Sacramental grace from them? Are they less capable of fully benefitting from God's grace because of their age and their not-yet-fully-developed mental capacities?

And I do not definitively know what happens to unbaptised children who die. I trust in God's mercy - that is all I can say.

 

[benedictaoo]

I'm talking about baptized babies going to hell with out Communion, NOT unbaptized.

You can give it to them... the Latin rite never says it's wrong to, just that they do not need it and we choose to follow Paul and allow for discernment.

That is what the west believes is best. the east has a different opinion on what they feel is best.

It the same issue as celibate preist vrs married priest. It's what we choose to follow (St. paul) and what we feel is best. There is no right or wrong here but we we prefer.

 

[benedictaoo]

and baptism is sacramental grace and if you have no sin and no way to form your conscious as a month old infant, baptism is all the grace you need for eternal life.

We need Communion as we grow and get older and come into the knowledge of sin. That's when we need it becuase that is when we can begin to lose our soul if we don't have it. It's when we have the ability to stain ourselves with sin.

 

[Rhamiel]

But why withhold Sacramental grace from them? Are they less capable of fully benefitting from God's grace because of their age and their not-yet-fully-developed mental capacities?

And I do not definitively know what happens to unbaptised children who die. I trust in God's mercy - that is all I can say.

it is the tradition of the west to wait till the child is older for them to recieve communion
I have no problem at all with the eastern tradition, and I love how it is respected and honored by eastern christians
i just wish that western christians could start to love western
Gwen, this is not aimed at you, but I have noticed a lot of western christians, especially catholics, down play western traditions in favor for eastern traditions

 

[benedictaoo]

Yep, the west may not have all the bells and whistles as the east, were just more practical.

 

[Gwendolyn]

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.

 

[Gwendolyn]

I love my Western tradition a great deal.

I don't think that the removal of the Sacraments of Initiation from their original order and the separation of several years between them is ideal. That isn't a matter of Eastern vs. Western tradition. It is a matter of the Sacraments being out of order when it is not necessary at all in the present day.