Newest Members
LectioDivina, Pilhov, Joel Marcus, FrDcnFinbarr, houseofsaul
5007 Registered Users
Who's Online
5 registered (crule, Athanasius The L, Fr. Al, 2 invisible), 133 Guests and 31 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
Father Archimandrite Januarius (Izzo), OFM
Can anyone identify what tradition this star might be from?
Lost Community in Lynch, KY
Patriarch Gregory at EWTN
Panagia's Tears Prayer Rope
Forum Stats
5007 Members
26 Forums
33015 Topics
400634 Posts

Max Online: 2716 @ 06/07/12 04:10 PM
Page 2 of 2 < 1 2
Topic Options
#337527 - 11/18/09 05:40 AM Re: Help?? Infant Communion... [Re: theophan]
StuartK Offline
Member

Registered: 11/09/01
Posts: 7394
Loc: Falls Church, VA
Quote:
The theological basis behind the withdrawal of the chalice from the laity in the West was precisely that Holy Communion received under only one species is still Holy Communion - that's what John Huss denied. We have a tendency to do things just to make the point. I hadn't realised the drastic effect on the Communion of infants, though.


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.

Top
#337530 - 11/18/09 06:44 AM Re: Help?? Infant Communion... [Re: theophan]
Irish Melkite Offline
Global Moderator
Member

Registered: 10/27/03
Posts: 9910
Loc: Massachusetts
As to the question about Coptic Orthodox communing in Latin Churches,

Canon 671, CCEO

Quote:
2. If necessity requires it or genuine spiritual advantage suggests it and provided that the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, it is permitted for Catholic Christian faithful, for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister, to receive
the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the
sick from non-Catholic ministers, in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

3. Likewise Catholic ministers licitly administer the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick to Christian faithful of Eastern Churches, who do not have full communion with the Catholic Church, if they ask for them on their own and are properly disposed. This holds also for the Christian faithful of other Churches, who according to the judgment of the Apostolic See, are in the same condition as the Eastern Churches as far as the sacraments are concerned.


and

Canon 844, CIC

Quote:
§2 Whenever necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage commends it, and provided the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, Christ's faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a catholic minister, may lawfully receive the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick from non-catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

§3 Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick to members of the eastern Churches not in full communion with the catholic Church, if they spontaneously ask for them and are properly disposed. The same applies to members of other Churches which the Apostolic See judges to be in the same position as the aforesaid eastern Churches so far as the sacraments are concerned.


(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
_________________________
"One day all our ethnic traits ... will have disappeared. Time itself is seeing to this. And so we can not think of our communities as ethnic parishes, ... unless we wish to assure the death of our community."

Top
#337535 - 11/18/09 12:14 PM Re: Help?? Infant Communion... [Re: StuartK]
Precentrix Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 11/07/09
Posts: 29
Loc: London, England
I am puzzled as to what on earth Lateran IV has to do with the matter?

Top
#337546 - 11/18/09 03:50 PM Re: Help?? Infant Communion... [Re: theophan]
Fr Serge Keleher Offline
Member

Registered: 06/22/06
Posts: 5599
Loc: Dublin
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

Top
#337553 - 11/18/09 04:46 PM Re: Help?? Infant Communion... [Re: Fr Serge Keleher]
StuartK Offline
Member

Registered: 11/09/01
Posts: 7394
Loc: Falls Church, VA
Quote:
I am puzzled as to what on earth Lateran IV has to do with the matter?


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.

Top
#337555 - 11/18/09 05:54 PM Re: Help?? Infant Communion... [Re: Irish Melkite]
theophan Offline
Moderator
Member

Registered: 11/27/02
Posts: 5839
Loc: Hollidaysburg, PA
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


Edited by theophan (11/18/09 05:55 PM)

Top
#337582 - 11/19/09 03:46 AM Re: Help?? Infant Communion... [Re: StuartK]
GMmcnabb Offline
Member

Registered: 03/15/06
Posts: 147
Loc: El Cerrito, CA
Originally Posted By: StuartK
Quote:
I am puzzled as to what on earth Lateran IV has to do with the matter?


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.


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.

Top
#337585 - 11/19/09 04:10 AM Re: Help?? Infant Communion... [Re: GMmcnabb]
StuartK Offline
Member

Registered: 11/09/01
Posts: 7394
Loc: Falls Church, VA
Quote:
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.


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:

Quote:
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.


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:

Quote:
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.


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

Quote:
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.


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.

Top
#337593 - 11/19/09 05:14 AM Re: Help?? Infant Communion... [Re: theophan]
Irish Melkite Offline
Global Moderator
Member

Registered: 10/27/03
Posts: 9910
Loc: Massachusetts
Originally Posted By: theophan
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,

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

Many years,

Neil
_________________________
"One day all our ethnic traits ... will have disappeared. Time itself is seeing to this. And so we can not think of our communities as ethnic parishes, ... unless we wish to assure the death of our community."

Top
#337649 - 11/19/09 05:24 PM Re: Help?? Infant Communion... [Re: Irish Melkite]
Precentrix Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 11/07/09
Posts: 29
Loc: London, England
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

Top
#337656 - 11/19/09 07:02 PM Re: Help?? Infant Communion... [Re: Precentrix]
theophan Offline
Moderator
Member

Registered: 11/27/02
Posts: 5839
Loc: Hollidaysburg, PA
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

Top
#337661 - 11/19/09 07:13 PM Re: Help?? Infant Communion... [Re: theophan]
StuartK Offline
Member

Registered: 11/09/01
Posts: 7394
Loc: Falls Church, VA
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?

Top
#337665 - 11/19/09 07:48 PM Re: Help?? Infant Communion... [Re: StuartK]
theophan Offline
Moderator
Member

Registered: 11/27/02
Posts: 5839
Loc: Hollidaysburg, PA
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

Top
Page 2 of 2 < 1 2

Moderator:  Alice, Father Deacon Ed, theophan 

The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. Contents copyright - 1996-2014. All rights reserved.