www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Help?? Infant Communion...

Huss was about two centuries after Lateran IV, and the reason for withdrawing the Chalice had nothing to do with theology, everything to do with fear of profanation of the Sacrament. That is to say, the clergy thought the laity were too sloppy to drink. There was never a deeper meaning behind the removal of the Chalice from the laity; it was a purely pastoral decision based on assumptions that would never fly today.

I also don't believe that Huss ever denied that the totality of Christ was present in either species, only that receiving ab utraque species was both biblically and theologically ideal. The modern Latin Church agrees.

As to the question about Coptic Orthodox communing in Latin Churches,

Canon 671, CCEO


and

Canon 844, CIC



(The final sentence of quoted text from both the above canons refers, for the moment, only to the Polish National Catholic Church in the US.)

That said, the Catholic Church recognizes that reception of the Mysteries by Orthodox Christians is contrary to the expressed discipline of their own Churches in many instances and recommends that the Orthodox faithful observe the dictates of their hierarchy in these matters. The objection to such is pretty much the norm among the Eastern Orthodox Churches, but the situation with the Oriental Orthodox is more complex.

I won't presume to state the current the current discipline of the Copts on this matter. There was, at one time, an informal agreement between Rome and Alexandria intended to assure the adequate provision of pastoral care to Copts separated from their own churches. I believe that it was principally intended to benefit Coptic Catholics who, outside their historic homelands, have significantly less pastoral resources available to them than do their Orthodox brethren. Whether that agreement is still viable, I'm uncertain - but doubtful, However, the allowance for Coptic Orthodox to commune in a Catholic church certainly exists under the cited canons - with the onus resting on the individual as to whether such is permitted by his Church.

As to others of the Oriental Orthodox Communion, the longest-standing formal pastoral provision exists between Rome and the Syriacs, being primarily intended to serve the two Syriac Churches, Catholic and Orthodox.

In the Middle East, particularly, the agreement involving the Syriac Orthodox is informally extended, principally to the Melkites, although reportedly also to the Maronites in some places. However, relationships between and among the Apostolic Churches in the Middle East generally, Catholic and Orthodox - both Oriental and Eastern, are significantly more accepting and informal than elsewhere; it isn't hard to understand that the nature of being a minority at risk has contributed to building such a collegial attitude.

The Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church (the Patriarchal faction), although not a formal party to the agreement, seem to indicate that they would honor it by reason of the Patriarch having entered into it.

The Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church (the Catholicos faction), on the other hand, would be unlikely to consider themselves parties to or bound by the agreement.

The Armenians, with their long history of cordial relations with Rome, have had such an agreement in place for many years. It is, to the best of my knowledge, informal (one periodically sees it referenced as being formalized, but I know of no one who claims to have ever seen the text of such).

Neither the Ethiopians nor Eritreans have any such agreement, formal nor informal, and I doubt either to be particularly receptive to the idea.

Albeit they are not truly 'Oriental Orthodox', the Assyrian Church is party to a formal pastoral agreement, virtually identical to that between Rome and the Syriacs. It is intended to be for the benefit of the Assyrian faithful and those of the Chaldean Church.

That agreement (probably less necessary than it was when forged, given the increased number of parishes that each Church now has in the diaspora) is still in place, although it likely suffered from the controversy surrounding the reception of Mar Bawai (Soro) into communion with the Chaldean Church. The Ancient Church of the East is not a party to the agreement and I don't know its formal attitude toward it, but I have read things which suggest that it is not strenuously opposed to the praxis.

Many years,

Neil

I am puzzled as to what on earth Lateran IV has to do with the matter?

Normally the Holy Lamb reserved for the Communion of the sick is moistened with the Precious Blood before being dried and reserved. In many places, this is done on Holy Thursday and the Holy Lamb so reserved is used (in principle) for the entire year.

Fr. Serge

It was due to the ruling of Lateran IV (1215) that the Latin Church began distributing communion to the laity under one species--as noted, for spurious pastoral reasons. Everything that came after that was merely an ex post facto attempt to rationalize theologically that which had become common practice.

NEIL:

Christ is in our midst!! He is and always will be!!

I understand all the canons about communing Eastern Christians not in communion who come with "proper disposition, etc." What I was picking up on in the original post was the expressed statement that persons communing came forward but did not believe that they were, in fact, receiving the Lord in a Latin Church. Somehow, to me, there is a disconnect here. Why would someone come to Holy Communion while at the same time denying that they were, infact, receiving the Mystery?
BOB

After looking over the entire Lateran IV council, I am afraid that you are mistaken on this point. Lateran IV declared Transubstantiation but makes no mention of reception under one species.

Communion under one kind was first made the rule during session XIII of the Council of Constance. This particular session seems to indicate the reasons for this were that some had taken to recieving Communion without fasting and after supper " since they pertinaciously assert that communion should be enjoyed.." (DS 626) and later it mentions that Christ is fully present under both species.

You are correct. I transposed two statements in Father Robert Taft's essay Liturgy in the Life of the Church, which gave me this false impression:


In fact, the practice begins in the century prior to Lateran IV; Lateran IV was merely taking notice of what had already happened.

Taft goes on to note:


The key point of this discussion is summarized by Taft in this statement:


With the restoration of communion under both species in the Latin Church, there is no longer any reason not to restore infant communion as well.

Bob,

Not sure - habit, maybe? (Go to church, go to Mass/Liturgy, receive Communion).

Many years,

Neil

Bob,

I had wondered the same thing. I suspect that they just hadn't really thought much about it - these guys are quite 'secular' in their outlook on life in general.

Anyway, guys, thanks for all the help;

Julie Michelle

Maybe it's just me.

Some years ago, I went to the First Holy Communion of my godson in another state. The pastor there insisted that he wanted everyone--all the parents--to come forward and receive with their children. Now my sister and her husband were uncomfortable because they'd never had their marriage blessed in church--indeed, he needed an annulment from his first marriage and they'd been married in a civil ceremony. They thought they'd decline. There was also a family there that the father was Jewish and he really ddin't want to be part of this, even when the pastor insisted.

But, then, I see this moment as the defining moment of a person's life--that most intimate moment when one touches Divinity and Divinity touches me; the most improtant act that I will do or participate in this side of eternity. I read St. Paul's admonition before receiving--about examining oneself so as not to be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord. Maybe I'm off; too strict or whatever.

BOB

The pastor was way out of bounds, and more than a little out of his gourd, if you ask me. Did he even bother to inquire about the status of the parents and godparents before he made this request? What do they teach them in the seminaries, these days?

Stuart:

My rule of thumb was given to me by my pastor as I was graduating high school in 1968. "In the future you won't be able to trust your pasrish priest because of the direction the seminaries are going. You'll have to know the Faith and teach it to your children yourself." (And I'm sure he also meant I'd ahve to correct the craziness that they might bring home from religious programs gone amok. I've seen that, too.)

BOB