www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West UGC Baby receiving Communion in an RC church

Roman Canon law speaks of the use of reason in regard to communication of children:


Nevertheless, St. Augustin himself believed it was necessary for infants to communicate:

Canon law concerns the discipline, not the doctrine, of a Church. The relevant portion of Taft I present below:

Infant Communion

In the case of Christian Initiation, modern historical research and historical reflection have shown that the universal primitive tradition of both East and West viewed the liturgical completion of Christian Initiation as one integral rite comprising three moments of baptism, chrismation and Eucharist, and without all three the process is incomplete. In Christian antiquity, to celebrate initiation without Eucharist would have made about as much sense as celebrating half a wedding would today. For this reason, contemporary Western Catholic experts on the liturgy and theology of Christian Initiation have insisted on the necessity of restoring the integrity of this process which broke down in the Middle Ages.

I expect that some of the Eastern Catholic clergy, educated in Latin seminaries or at least in Latin categories of a previous epoch, are convinced that the practice of infant communion is not “Catholic”—or at least not as Catholic as the Latin practice of delaying first Communion until children have attained the use of reason. Why they might think this is no mystery. The prevailing Latin thesis was that the use of reason was necessary to receive the Eucharist fruitfully. But if this is so, what could be the point of infant Communion?

This problem, too, can be dissipated by a knowledge of the facts. From the beginning of the primitive Church in East and West, the process of Christian Initiation for both children and adults was one inseparable sequence comprising catechumenate, baptism, chrismation (confirmation) and Eucharist. History is unmistakably clear in this matter: every candidate, child or adult, was baptized, confirmed, and given Communion as part of a single initiation rite. This is the universal ancient Catholic Tradition. Anything else is less ancient and has no claim to universality.

For centuries, this was also the tradition of the Church of Rome. In 417, Pope Innocent I in a doctrinal letter to the Fathers of the Synod of Milevis, teaches that infant initiation necessarily includes Communioon:

To preach that infants can be given the rewards of eternal life without the grace of baptism is completely idiotic. For unless theu eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, they will not have life in them. [Note: From the text, it is obvious that Innocent I is teaching principally that without baptism infants cannot be saved. But the argument he uses from John 6:53, which refers to the necessity of eucharist for salvation, shows he simply took for granted that communion was an integral part of Christian Initiation for infants].

That this was the actual liturgical practice of Rome can be seen, for example, in the 7th century Ordo romanus XI, and in the 12th century Roman pontifical, which repeats almost verbatim the same rule (I cite from the later text):

"Concerning infants, care should be taken that they receive no food or be nursed (except in case of urgent need) before receiving the sacrament of Christ’s Body. And afterwards, during the whole of Easter Week, let them come to Mass, and receive Communion every day."

Until the 12th century this was the sacramental practice of the Roman Church and the doctrinal teaching of Latin theologians. Christ Himself said in John 6:53 that it was necessary for eternal life to receive his Body and Blood—“Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you”—and the medieval Latin theologians applied this to everyone without exception, infants included.

The practice began to be called into question in the 12th century not because of any argument about the need to have attained the “age of reason” (aetus discretionis) to communicate. Rather, the fear of profanation of the Host if the child could not swallow it led to giving the Precious Blood only. And then the forbidding of the chalice to the laity in the West led automatically to the disappearance of infant Communion, too. This was not the result of any pastoral or theological reasoning. When the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) ordered yearly confession and Communion for those who have reached the “age of reason” (annos discretionis), it was not affirming this age as a requirement for reception of the Eucharist. Even the 1910 decree Quam singulari issued under Pius X mentions the age of reason not as required before Communion, but as the age when the obligation of satisfying the precept begins.

Nevertheless, the notion eventually took hold that Communion could not be received until the age of reason, even though infant Communion in the Latin rite continued in some parts of the West until the 16th century. Though the Fathers of Trent (Session XXI,4) denied the necessity of infant Communion, they refused to agree with those who said it was useless and inefficacious—realizing undoubtedly that the exact same arguments used against infant Communion could also be used against infant baptism, because for over ten centuries in the West, the same theology was used to justify both! For the Byzantine rite, on December 23, 1534, Paul III explicitly confirmed the Italo-Albanian custom of administering Communion to infants.

So the plain facts of history show that for 1200 years the universal practice of the entire Church of East and West was to communicate infants. Hence, to advance doctrinal arguments against infant Communion is to assert that the sacramental teaching and practice of the Roman Church was in error for 1200 years. Infant Communion was not only permitted in the Roman Church, at one time the supreme magisterium taught that it was necessary for salvation. In the Latin Church the practice was not suppressed by any doctrinal or pastoral decision, but simply died out. Only later, in the 13th century, was the ‘age of reason’ theory advanced to support the innovation of baptizing infants without also giving them Communion. So the “age of reason” requirement for Communion is a medieval Western pastoral innovation, not a doctrinal argument. And the true ancient tradition of the whole Catholic Church is to give Communion to infants. Present Latin usage is a medieval innovation.

The real issue, of course, is not infant Communion, but the universal tradition of the integrity of Christian Initiation, which the West abandoned only in the 12th century. The traditional order of initiation (baptism, chrismation, communion) was maintained until Quam singulari in 1910, when in some countries first Communion began to be given before confirmation. But the Holy See has in the official praenotando of the new Roman Rite of Christian Initiation promulgated May 15, 1969, reaffirmed the traditional order and interrelationship of these rites:

1. Through the sacraments of Christian initiation, men and women are freed from the power of darkness. With Christ, they die, are buried and rise again. They receive the Spirit of adoption which makes them God’s sons and daughters and with the entire people of God, they celebrate the memorial of the Lord’s death and reurrection.

2. Through baptism, men and women are incorporated into Christ. They are formed into God’s people, and they obtain forgiveness for all their sins. They are raised from their natural human condition to the dignity of adopted children. They become a new creation through water and the Holy Spirit. Hence they are called, and are indeed the children of God.

Signed with the gift of the Spirit in confirmation, Christians more perfectly become the image of their Lord and are filled with the Holy Spirit. They bear witness to him before all the world, and work eagerly for the building up of the Body of Christ.

Finally, they come to the table of the Eucharist, to eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man, so that they may have eternal life and shoew forth the unity of God’s people. By offering themselves with Christ, they share in his universal sacrifice: the entire community of the redeemed is offered to God by their high priest. They pray for a greater outpouring of the Holy Spirit so that the whole human race may be brought into the unity of God’s family.

Thus the three sacraments of Christian Initiation clearly combine to bring the faithful to full stature of Christ and to enable them to carry out the mission of the entire people of God I the Church and in the world.

Thus the Catholic Church has reaffirmed the normative value of the ancient tradition preserved from time immemorial in the East—a renewal received with enthusiasm by all the experts in the field. So both universal early tradition and the present teaching of even the Latin Church show Eastern practice to be not a strange exception that should be abandoned, but the traditional ideal that should be preserved or restored.

With all due respect to Father Archimandrite Robert, with whose writings I rarely have any argument, I know of no Eastern presbyters who are convinced of this.


That may be, but the recent editions of same blur the distinction in several instances - thus, making it difficult, if not impossible, to dismiss Canon Law out-of-hand in such matters.

Many years,

Neil

"With all due respect to Father Archimandrite Robert, with whose writings I rarely have any argument, I know of no Eastern presbyters who are convinced of this."

When this was written, in 1999, it most certainly was true. The setting was a meeting in Boston between Cardinal Sylvestrini, then Prefect of the Oriental Congregation, and ALL of the Eastern Catholic prelates of North America, the purpose of which was a general reaming out because of the slow pace of liturgical and spiritual renewal. Father Taft's paper was the centerpiece of the conference, later reprinted in Eastern Churches Journal.

I would point out even though infant communion has been restored throughout the Ruthenian Church (grudgingly in some instances), "pastoral prudence" has resulted in a number of ridiculous compromises that are not consistent with the authentic Tradition. For instance, in many (most?) parishes, there is still what amounts to a "first communion", though now it is called either "first confession", or first "solemn communion", which gives the impression that what the children have been receiving prior to this somehow is less than "solemn". It took some extraordinary actions on my part to have my younger daughter receive the mystery of reconciliation prior to May in her second grade year after she asked if she could go to confession. The Tradition says each of us is different, and it is up to the parents and the pastor to determine, on an individual basis, whether a child is ready for confession.

So why do we do this? Because the Babas would have a fit if deprived of the opportunity to take pictures of their darling grandchildren dressed up like little brides and grooms to receive what I still hear (in the reception afterwards) referred to as "Little So-and-so's First Communion". Obviously, there has been a failure to properly catechize the faithful if this attitude still exists, and that failure resides with the clergy, who would have made it a higher priority, had they really, really believed in it.

"That may be, but the recent editions of same blur the distinction in several instances - thus, making it difficult, if not impossible, to dismiss Canon Law out-of-hand in such matters."

As Eastern Christians, we Eastern Catholics must understand and use the canons in accordance with our Tradition, a Tradition that sees canons not as a body of objective and binding "law", but as precedents and guidelines within which the bishops must exercise their legitimate oikonomia.

Moreover, canon law can never override or contradict doctrine, and as Taft has shown, in this particular instance, the canons of the Western Church contradict the teachings of the undivided Church, never repudiated by the Church. The West's continued refusal to communicate infants (never universally applied throughout the Western Church, by the way) is an indication of how custom can override doctrine.

Archimandrite Robert may have thought so and you may think so, Stuart, but in 40 years as an actively involved Eastern Catholic I have yet to ever meet an Eastern Catholic presbyter who was convinced of that. I will not disagree that the 'first communion' services imposed during decades of latinization were slow to pass out of existence due to their photogenic grip on parents and grandparents.

And, indeed, pastors were complicit in continuing for a long while to humor the demands for such - that does not mean to say that they were convinced of any such thing. It says that they were loathe to enter into battle with folks who had lived with this praxis for their entire lives and believed it to be authentic to their heritage. One can well imagine that, among the elder clergy in the 60's and 70's were those who could remember parishes that split asunder over enforced change. Wrong-thinking? Yes. Not as strong or courageous as they might have been? Yes. Convinced that infant communing was 'wrong'? I don't think so.

Many years,

Neil

I would be the last person to gainsay Archimandrite Robert (indeed, having tried to do so once, I am still smarting from the experience). Let us say that each of us has our own experiences, and though mine doesn't match yours for longevity, I have seen a lot and kept my eyes open. When I was baptized back in 1996, the last vestiges of resistant to infant communion were starting to fade, but there were priests in the Metropolia who were not regularly communicating infants. And there were parents, including a number in my own parish, who would not bring their children forward for communion, despite extensive cajoling on the part of the pastor. That was the situation when I arrived in the Ruthenian Church, and Father Taft was writing just three years later. Lots of strange things happen in the wilds of Pennsylvania--so it would not surprise me if Father Taft knew whereof he spoke.

One cannot extrapolate from one particular Eastern Catholic Church to another, because each has its own history. My own sense is there was far more clerical and popular resistance to change in the Ruthenian Church than in the Melkite Church, the Melkites overall being much more self-confident and sure of their own identity. Outside the Byzantine rite, it seems to me the Maronites, Chaldeans and Malabarese are far more latinized and reluctant to change.

In any case, my point in citing Taft was not to critique the Eastern Catholic Churches but to demonstrate that, whatever the Latin Code of Canons may say, there is nothing that prevents a Latin ordinary from restoring infant communion within his own diocese--and several, apparently, have done so--except for fear of the wrath of grandma that will descend upon him if he does.

That said, no Latin priest should ever deny communion to a fully illuminated Eastern Catholic child, regardless of age. My own experience in this area is one reason I prefer to attend Liturgy at Orthodox parishes when there are no Greek Catholic parishes available.

This is not quite accurate. For example, Canon 899 deals with doctrine.


Otherwise, your point is well taken. Sometimes, I think that just as Romans can be too concerned with law, we Easterners can be too concerned that everything be done "the way it was before the Great Schism."

I for one see some logic in the position that rational food should be for those of the "age of reason." On the other hand, I love the fact that my infants and young children were chrismated and communicated upon changing rites. I still remember very fondly, peacefully holding my 18 month old son after he had just received the Son of God. What a delight! As my cousin stated, "I have always believed that children should be bathed, clothed, and fed." There's logic in that position too!

Roman and Eastern Catholics each belong to the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We need to remember that. I often find I get along better with Romans attached to the extraordinary form than I do with some fellow Eastern Catholics and many typical Roman Catholics. Certainly the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite is far closer to the Divine Liturgy than is Paul VI's Novus Ordo.

We need to respect and encourage each others legitimate differences, and recognize that the greatest evil threatening the Church is not our differences, but the modernism that has crept into the Church and which seeks to consume us all--even the best of scholars.

Well, there is. I cited it above. It is canon 913



Emphasis added.

Section 2 of the same canon illumines what is meant in section one:



Section 2 indicates that there is an exception to section one, if a child can distinguish the body of Christ from ordinary food. N.B., since this is Roman canon law, there is no mention of receiving the blood of Christ in this canon.

I do recognize that Fr. Taft may have no use for such law or authority, but that's a whole separate issue. Historical evidence of what things once were is no substitute for the living magisterium of the Church whose positions are, to some extent, set forth in canon law. It is the same canon law which demands that a Roman priest has no authority to refuse communion to an Eastern Catholic child who has not reached the "age of reason."

"Roman and Eastern Catholics each belong to the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We need to remember that. I often find I get along better with Romans attached to the extraordinary form than I do with some fellow Eastern Catholics and many typical Roman Catholics. Certainly the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite is far closer to the Divine Liturgy than is Paul VI's Novus Ordo. "

Actually, I usually get on best with the Orthodox. They recognize me as one of them. Which, when you get down to it, is what all Greek Catholics are supposed to be--Eastern Orthodox Christians in communion with the Church of Rome. Or, as Patriarch Lyubomir of Kyiv said, "Between the Orthodox and the Greek Catholics there are no theological differences"--a thought echoed by Patriarch Gregorios III of Antioch: "I am an Orthodox Christian, with a plus--I am in communion with the Church of Rome".

Regarding comparisons between the Divine Liturgy on the one hand, and the Ordo Pius V and Ordo Paulus VI on the other, I submit that you are utterly, remarkably wrong. This may be due to your encountering the Novus Ordo only through the awful ICEL translation and the slapdash mode of celebration that is too common in this country. But it is also just as likely that you only know the Tridentine Rite as it is currently celebrated under the auspices of the FSSP--which is not at all typical of the way it was celebrated in the 1950s. Also, if you do a more careful analysis not merely of the texts but of the understanding of liturgy and the assumptions underlying the celebration of each form of the Latin Mass, you will see that the new form is more congruent with the Divine Liturgy than the old form--which should be no surprise, as the liturgical movement frequently looked to the East for inspiration in the restoration and renewal of the Western liturgy.

"Section 2 indicates that there is an exception to section one, if a child can distinguish the body of Christ from ordinary food. N.B., since this is Roman canon law, there is no mention of receiving the blood of Christ in this canon."

Of course, let us take this to its logical extreme, and the Latin Church would not administer communion to the mentally disabled who do not meet this arbitrary and in fact nonsensical requirement (Do you understand the mystery of the Eucharist? if so, please fill in the rest of us). As Father Taft said, the abandonment of infant communion, the development of a theory of an "age of reason", are not doctrinal at all, but pastoral innovations with no theological foundation.

The fact is, the Catholic Church as a whole has acknowledged that the first millennium is the normative standard; we aspire to think with the minds of the Fathers, particularly on matters as important as the Eucharist. Vatican II set out to reform the rites of initiation in the Latin Church, and that objective is still valid. That it hasn't happened is due entirely to a lack of nerve, and the canons of the Latin Church have no validity when they contradict the authentic Tradition of the Church. And, as I said before, infant communion NEVER entirely disappeared from the Latin Church, but remained in practice in places like the Philippines and elsewhere. A bishop can override this canon; he is the ordinary minister of the Eucharist in his diocese, and ultimately, he and he alone determines who can and cannot receive. Thus, if a bishop wants to--and several have said that they do--there is nothing anyone can do to stop them. And every time one does, I will cheer.

I have only had the opportunity to befriend one Orthodox gentlemen. We got along remarkably well.



My experience with the Novus Ordo, done as ought to be, primarliy in Latin with Gregorian chant, has been over a ten year period. My experience with the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite has been over a seven year period. It has been at indult Masses until Summorum Pontificorum, except when I served the Mass as a very young child. Since I was born in the 60s, I don't remember how the Mass was done in the 1950s.

Although I think the West was attempting to imitate the East with the Ordo of Paul VI, even absent all of the abuses, the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite still impresses me as much closer to the Divine Liturgy in its prayers, its beauty, and its respect for the Divine than the Novus Ordo (even done well) which itself strikes me as Liturgy created by committee.

I agree that communion of infants is not doctrinal and never indicated that it was. Nevertheless, the respect of law is vitally important. Fr. Taft has little use for the law of the Church and the living magisterium when they conflict with his opinions--as evidence take the RDL which he approved when in the Oriental Congregation--he even wanted more "inclusive language."

The Fathers (whose thoughts and lives should inspire us all) do not always speak with "one mind." What is normative for the Church, is set forth in a variety of ways (none of which can be contradictory) including its canons. As Fr. Hugh Barbour, a patristic scholar, states:



In dogma we must, by the very nature of dogma, be single minded; in discipline and praxis, we can be as varied and as beautiful as the flowers of the earth.

"I have only had the opportunity to befriend one Orthodox gentlemen. We got along remarkably well."

Flesh of our flesh, bone of our bone. If more of us could gather together in friendship, the schism would end in short order.

"Since I was born in the 60s, I don't remember how the Mass was done in the 1950s. "

You might ask Father Serge, or read some of the comments he has written on the situation.

"the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite still impresses me as much closer to the Divine Liturgy in its prayers, its beauty, and its respect for the Divine than the Novus Ordo (even done well) which itself strikes me as Liturgy created by committee."

On the other hand, consider that the "Extraordinary Form", as we shall now call it, totally abrogates the roll of the laity to the priest. He really does "say" Mass, the people really do "hear" it; the rubrics are quite explicit--only the words and actions of the priest matter. He says the prayers of the priest, of the deacon, of the faithful. It all goes back to the medieval innovation of "private Mass", celebrated first in monasteries, and then moving out into parochial use. Leave aside the text, this alone places an immense distance between the Tridentine rite and the Byzantine rite--even in those Churches where congregational singing was largely replaced by choral arrangements. In the Byzantine rite, the Liturgy always remained a dialogue between the celebrant and the people, often with the deacon serving as intermediary between the two.

Regarding the normative Latin text of the Missae Paulus VI, I have two quibbles. The first is the proliferation of Eucharistic prayers, which is alien to the Latin Tradition (which had just one Eucharistic prayer, the Roman Canon), and a blind imitation of Eastern liturgy (which was characterized by multiple anaphorae). However, while the use of specific anaphorae in the East is governed by the Typicon, in the West the selection of the Eucharistic prayer is generally left to the discretion of the celebrant--who usually chooses either the shortest or the one most theologically agreeable to him. Finally, several of these new Eucharistic prayers feature an explicit epiclesis of an Eastern sort, which the Roman Canon, with its Christocentric focus, never had. All of these things combined are to me major flaws in the execution of the Vatican II liturgical commission--whose mandate, by the way, was the same as that given to the Tridentine liturgical commission some 400 years earlier--to restore the Roman rite to its "pristine" state (generally considered some time in the 7th or 8th centuries).

" Nevertheless, the respect of law is vitally important. "

Why, when the law is wrong or injust?

"as evidence take the RDL which he approved when in the Oriental Congregation--he even wanted more "inclusive language.""

From my discussions with Father Taft, he felt his mandate was limited to checking the RDL for doctrinal soundness; his was a minimal review. As for his views on inclusive language, he and I disagree profoundly on that, but it has no bearing on whether he is right or wrong concerning infant communion. Each argument must be evaluated on its own merits.

"[we should hold the] doctrinal standard of St. Vincent of Lerins --- quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab ominibus, or of the First Vatican Council that the dogmas of the faith are held in every age in eodem sensu et significatu. "

Either Father Barber is being disingenuous or he holds a particularly idiosyncratic view of what was believed quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus. It would hardly be possible to defend Vatican I using that standard, except by a generous dose of cherry picking and special pleading.

Why? It's the text that actually makes me see the similarities.



A rather narrow view of the EF.

Precisely what Roman canon law is wrong or unjust? And who gets to arbitrate that decision? S.J.?



I think he's dodging bullets. From one of my conversations with a member of the liturgical commission, he said "Rome" wanted more "inclusive language." From all of the pieces of the puzzle I have been able to put together, that had to have been S.J....but you're right, it's a different issue than infant communion.



Or he is breathing with both lungs. And since most of the world has gotten used to using only one lung, those who are functioning without all of their organs might just be wondering if such a man has been inhaling a little too much....

"Why? It's the text that actually makes me see the similarities. "

Because liturgy is much more than text. It's an entire ritual language involving gestures, movements, symbolism, and a mindset, in addition to words.

"A rather narrow view of the EF."

The rubrics are what the rubrics are. If you had attended a Tridentine Mass back in the early sixties, you probably would have ended up attending a silent low Mass (predominant form in this country), in which the priest busied himself around the altar, silently reciting most of the prayers, while the people performed their private devotions until the time for Communion arrived. If, by some chance, you went to a high Mass, you might have found it disconcerting that what the choir was singing had nothing to do with what the priest was doing at the altar. That's what makes the five part, composed choral Mass, a staple from Palestrina to Brahms, possible--the music is chrome, not part of the chassis of the liturgy.

The fact that the Tridentine Mass was compiled using the low Mass as the normative form, and the high Mass as an elaboration of the low (a reversal of the normal order in all other liturgies, including the Old Roman Rite, in which the pontifical form is normative, makes it very much an artifact, in the same way that the Novus Ordo or the RDL can be considered an artifact. And in the process of compilation, the Tridentine liturgical commission enshrined a number of medieval abuses and innovations, simply because, lacking both source documents and scholarly apparatus, they didn't know any better. The fact that the Tridentine rite enshrined the medieval innovation of private Mass makes it very, very different from any of the Eastern liturgies, especially in its understanding of what liturgy is.

If you want to pick a point at which there was congruence between the Eastern and Western liturgies, you have to go back a long way before 1565. Probably back into the first millennium. And if you went back as far as the Old Roman Rite, you would find something very terse, epigrammatic and rational--not at all like the florid and prolix Eastern liturgies (the Tridentine is descended from a hybrid Romano-Gallic rite that evolved in Germany in the 9th-10th centuries). The more you learn about the medieval Roman rites, the less like the Byzantine rite they appear.

I agree that it is more, but not less...so I still find a greater likeness of the EF to the DL than the novus ordo to the DL.

The more I experience the two, the more complimentary and essentially the same they appear. But reducing things to essences is a Roman fault, I know.

We have gone far enough off-topic that the thread has only the vaguest relationship to the question posed in the original post. Note that this is not to say that the questions being discussed at present are without merit; those who wish to pursue them are welcome to open a new thread, focused on the subject, and do so.

Posters need to understand and consider that, ofttimes, a question is just that - a question.

A member who posts such (and myriad others who will search this forum at a later date with a need for the same or similar information) is concerned with the practicalities posed by their situation (e.g., "do I have a right to expect this?", "if so, is that right absolute?", "how can or should I approach the matter?", "if I have the right, and am refused, do I have recourse and, if so, what and how do I pursue that?").

Discourses as to the historical origins of praxis, the competing views of theologians on the matter, and - even more so - debate of topics that are only related peripherally, if at all, - do not contribute meaningfully to the original poster's concern, no matter how learned in tone or tenor.*

By way of example, if you were to skim through some fora threads that present basic queries of the sort posted here, you will most commonly find that original posters offer thanks early on in the thread, after receiving what appear to be straightforward answers to their questions. Then, they most typically bow out of the thread, because the ongoing discussion lacks relevance to their situation.

The thread is closed. Thanks to all who participated.

Many years,

Neil

*on the converse, persons searching for discussions that explore the Canons as a repository for doctrinal instruction or interpretation are unlikely to consider a thread with such a specific and practical title as here to be what they are seeking.