www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West What councils are binding upon Byzantines!

The actual authentic useage of the Latin Church was and remains to administer all three sacraments of initiation at one moment, and for communion to be received by all who have been baptized and confirmed. This was the practice of the Latin Church for more than 1200 years, and it only passed into desuetude due to the inadvertant effect of Lateran IV removing the Chalice from the laity. Theories about "age of reason" are just that--theories, not formally adopted as doctrine. Slowly (very slowly) the Latin Church is moving back to its ancient practice (See Raobert F. Taft's essay, "Liturgy in the Life of the Church" for details).

When the Council of Trent was held, it's main objective was to repudiate the errors of the Reformers, many of whom advocated delay of baptism until the "age of reason"--or even until adulthood. The Latin Church probably saw its then-current useage of denying the Eucharist to infants (due mainly to the fact that they were not confirmed) as normative, but the Council could outright declare that infant communion was invalid, because the same arguments used to support infant baptism had been used for centuries to support infant communion. To say that those arguments were invalid in the case of infant communion would mean that they were invalid for infant baptism as well. Hence the Council ruled that infant communion was valid, "but not necessary". Of course, that last phrase invalidated the rulings of many a first millennium Pope and the liturgical useage of a millennium of Romen pontificals, who stated pretty directly that the communion of infants was an integral part of the rite of initiation, and essential for their salvation, but hey, half a loaf is better than none, and Trent left the door open for a restoration of authentic Latin practices--and for our own (Ea Semper not withstanding).

Hello:


Although the language of Trent's Canon is quite strong for discipline, you might be right. I think we can safely say that this matter is not of dogmatic nature.

I reached this conclusion after giving some thought because dogma accepts no exception, and the very fact that there *are* extraordinary ministers for virtually every sacrament, it follows that the specification of the minister of each sacrament cannot be dogmatized.

And therefore, for whatever reason, that canon from Trent is not infallible and the existence of a tradition against it, in this case in the Byzantine Churches, shouldn't be considered a doctrinal inconsistency, much less a threat to full communion.

Shalom,
Memo.

Hello:


No. It just says that those who have the tradition of infant Communion, shouldn't think that the children of those who do not have this tradition are in imminent danger of eternal damnation.

In fact, to put it bluntly, the Council says nothing about your children. The Council says that *our* Children will do fine if they wait until the age of reason to receive Holy Communion.


I think that again this is not an issue about the Eucharist but rather about our different theologies of sin.

At Baptism all our previous sins, including the Original Sin, are forgiven and we receive the Holy Spirit and are in a state of Grace.

This state of Grace will only be lost when we commit actual mortal sin.

A child who is not capable of knowing the difference between good and evil is not capable of commiting any actual mortal sin, therefore his/her state of Grace will not be lost and, should he or she pass away, the Grace of his/her Baptism should be *enough*.

I know that this might sound completely wacko to the Eastern mentality, but this how your Western brethren have constructed this doctrine.


I don't think that it is an error, and I don't think any correction is necessary.

The Canon says that both your way and our way are fine. We've always thought this, the Canon just ensures that you think so as well.

Shalom,
Memo.

I agree, Memo. Frankly, I hear a lot of Easterners speaking and whining about latinizations, and I totally respect where they're coming from; they're right. But, in the same way, it seems hypocritical for Easterners to "demand" that these Western "errors" be corrected. As I have heard so often around here, let the sui juris churches tend to their own needs, let the Western church handle its own. Folks on high horses aren't needed.

ChristTeen287

Memo,
Get rid of your Augustinian mentalilty because it has no room within Orthodoxy. We don't believe in the eternal damnation that Rome passed on to the Protestant world. You western rational people think you know what's best when your very biased history is tainted and has exclude itself from the fullness of the Orthodox Church. I certainly do not believe for one moment that your perception of sin is the same as ours. The heresy of relativism has thrived & multiplied best under western conditions.
I am convinced that Rome has erred in regards to the delayed infant communion. Those who follow Rome and obey are in error. Our friend StuartK is quite optimistic on Rome restoring her originally practices even when we have not witnessed such restorations. Maybe we should start a thread on the restoration of the Orthodox practices of Rome?
What do you say StuartK? The Filioque has yet to disappear from all Roman texts despite the fact the Pope recites without it.

When I say this I'm not trying to poke fun at infant communion it's just that I don't know any other way of saying this: How does one administer communion to the infant so that it doesn't spit it back up? And if the infant would continue to push the communion back out of it's mouth... what then is the proper way of handling the remainder of the communion?

Again I know nothing about this, so I'm not try to poke fun.


Justin

In fact, to put it bluntly, the Council says nothing about your children. The Council says that *our* Children will do fine if they wait until the age of reason to receive Holy Communion.

Of course, if a division is made between "your" children and "our" children in an "ecumenical council", how does that "ecumenical council" get recognised as ecumenical (that is, applying to all the Church)? Have there ever been ecumenical councils of the undivided Church where there were "local Church-specific" guidelines?

How does one administer communion to the infant so that it doesn't spit it back up? And if the infant would continue to push the communion back out of it's mouth... what then is the proper way of handling the remainder of the communion?

Well, Maximus, your question seems to assume that we use hosts. :p In my Church, the priest brings the chalice to the child (he usually doesn't administer communion to the people from the chalice, but from the paten), dips a couple of fingers into the chalice, finds a "crumb" soaked with the Blood, and while being careful not to let anything drop, he puts It into the child's mouth. Then, he dips his fingers in the Blood two more times and puts that in the child's mouth, followed by some water, again from his fingers. Then he wipes the child's mouth with the holy sponge. Always seems to do the trick.

Ok run it by me one more time: Why, exactly, is the Western practice of not permitting infants to receive communion wrong? The Augustinian notions make sense to me. Sometimes it seems the Orthodox are very anti-Augustinian simply because he supported Rome on so many issues. Anyway, it's a development of doctrine, so it should be perfectly fine with all Catholics.

ChristTeen287

ChristTeen 287,
There is nothing catholic about suspending communion from infants. It serves no purpose but to violate the practice that Rome had always upheld. Our Holy tradition is very clear on this topic but it seems to me that Roman Catholics continue dodging the ancient practices. The sematic warfare will not seem to end with your scholastic mindsets. Always trying to justify errors because its the "norm" today. Even the sprinkling of water on infants for baptism has become the "norm" when such acts were reserved in cases of emergencies. These are some examples of Roman deviations that do not reflect her ancient practices. Rome would be better off returning to her Orthodox roots.

The difference, of course, is that in those the Latin Church itself has admitted that its practices have departed from patristic norms, and it has set for itself the objective of restoring them. So, e.g., Vatican II set for the Catholic (Latin) Church the objective of restoring the integrity of the Rites of Christian Initiation--and we have already seen some progress. Whether you like it or not, the day is coming, not far off, when the Latin Church, too, will return to administering all three of the sacraments at once and then to administer the Eucharist to all who have received those sacraments, regardless of age.

Use wine that the kids like. I've NEVER seen an infant spit up the Eucharist, not EVER. Which is more than I can say for some adults.

>>>In fact, to put it bluntly, the Council says nothing about your children. The Council says that *our* Children will do fine if they wait until the age of reason to receive Holy Communion.<<<

On the other hand, many earlier popes said explicitly that "their" children would not do OK if denied access to the Eucharist as infants. Rather the reverse--they insisted that infants MUST receive the Eucharist. They were quite consistent about that for 1200 years.

Unless you eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man, you have no life in you. Put bluntly, the current Latin practice is an historical accident, that came about not by any conscious pastoral decision, but through sloth and inertia. As a result, the Latin Church has excommunicated a good portion of its people for no reason other than age, in direct contradiction not only to the universal practice of the undivided Church, but to the repeated instructions of many popes and the rubrics of the Roman rite itself. There is to this day NOTHING in either Latin canon law or sacramental theology that prohibits Latin infants from receiving the Eucharist. If a bishop wished to do so today, he could. It is merely "habit" that causes people to wait until some theologically arbitrary "age of reason"--a concept never formally adopted in Latin canon law, except in the negative sense--there is a certain age beyond which a child MUST begin to receive the Eucharist in order to comply with the precept for frequent reception. So, out of force of habit, you deny your children the source of immortality. I think that's wrong. So do a lot of Latin theologians. Sadly, a lot of Latin nonnas do not, so it will take a while before things go back to the way they once were and should still be.

In a legalistic environment, minima always have a way of becoming maxima.

Rum Orthodox,

I'm not necessarily saying that Rome wouldn't be better off going back to giving infants the Eucharist. Neither am I debating that this was the ancient Roman practice. I'm simply stating that I don't see anything inherently wrong, doctrinally or dogamtically, with this position. Just because the ancient Roman church didn't practice this discipline earlier on doesn't mean it is completely wrong or heretical. It would be better for the cause of unity to return to the ancient practice, but it would also be better for the cause of unity if some would accept that witholding Our Lord from infants is valid, even if not in line with patristic Tradition.

ChristTeen287