'It's our tradition!' Oh really? Would someone please tell me how 'the tradition' of giving The Holy Mystery of Communion to infants and other unknowing critters is rational? Besides 'feely, touchy, niceness', is there a need for this abominable practice? The reason for not administrating this Holy Mystery to the insane, the dozing, or my pet turtle, is the same reason against infant Communion.

As to the 'tradition' of married priests, it matters not a bit. As long as he (and it must be a he) faithfully does priestly stuff, how can one complain?

"I'm sorry, my child, until you're old enough to understand what food is, you may not eat". What mother would tell her newborn child this while denying the child her breast? How can one justify feeding a child earthly food while denying the same child spiritual food? Does one not teach their children which foods are necessary to grow up strong and healthy?

How could one justify taking their children to the Eucharistic Celebration yet tell them "you cannot eat and drink until you understand what we adults even call a Mystery"? We in the Byzantine Church had lost this ancient practice after our spiritual ancestors came to America and have only recently renewed this custom. Interestingly, the Latin Church has called for a restoration of the same custom of offering the three Sacramental Mysteries (Baptism, Chrismation and Eucharist) to infants once again in the Western Church. Just this past year several U.S. Roman Catholic bishops have moved the timing of the Sacrament of Confirmation from high school age to before the first reception of the Eucharist - thus restoring the proper order of these Sacraments. It will be generations before the Latins fully restore the custom of offering all three Sacraments to infants but the process has been started.

BTW, the Eucharist is offered to those with mental disabilities. They need not understand to find nourishment since the power of the Sacraments transcends the recipient's ability to understand them. Your pet turtle is not in need of the Eucharist since turtles - to my knowledge - are not in need of a Savior.

What Moose Said!

The Eucharist is food necessary for life, not a reward for the perfect, nor a puzzle to be decoded.

I've said it before - if understanding what it is that we receive is a requirement, then kick me right out of line, because I certainly cannot grasp the Mystery.

I can think of no better, more nourishing food for an infant than the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord. I have two living children - for the first 6 or 8 months of their lives, the ONLY food or drink they received came either from my body, or the Lord's. (Not to mention the "regimen" of prenatal Eucharistic "vitamins.")

What is the real tragedy is how many of our people do not (or cannot) avail themselves of the Bread of Angels. Starvation takes many forms...some are invisible.


In Christ,


Sharon Mech, SFO
Cantor & sinner
sharon@cmhc.com

Thanks for the personal information, Sharon. You're right on target in my book. The Medieval Latins had a hymn: "O Esca Viatorum", meaning "O Food of Pilgrims", referring to the Eucharist as the sustenance for those on the journey to God. (As a kid, I used to refer to the hymn as "Box-Lunch for the Pilgrim Church", because eucharist is not a reward, it is sustenance--just like the other sacraments. If we keep waiting until we're 'worthy', it'll be a long wait.

As far as married priests are concerned, jbonk, if your only concern is that they do 'priestly stuff', then what does it matter if the man is married or not. But why do so many go bananas over the issue?

Why do I get the suspicion that this original message was posted to bait the participants into irate responses? Too bad it doesn't work on most of us since as cradle Easterners, we're used to having people condemn us for our strange ways, or prostyletize us to join the 'real Catholic Church'. After a long history of this kind of treatment, it's "water off a duck's back". One just has to shrug one's shoulders, and keep on moving.

By the by Sharon, you sign yourself as Sharon, SFO. Are you, perhaps, a large International Airport on the West Coast? (In that case, I guess I'm John, IAD!!). What gives?

Also, are the kids still 'regular' communicants?

[This message has been edited by Dr John (edited 07-30-1999).]

Glory to Jesus Christ!

"'It's our tradition!' Oh really? Would someone please tell me how 'the tradition' of giving The Holy Mystery of Communion to infants and other unknowing critters is rational? Besides 'feely, touchy, niceness', is there a need for this abominable practice? The reason for not administrating this Holy Mystery to the insane, the dozing, or my pet turtle, is the same reason against infant Communion."

Reasonable question, great answers. Unfortunately, however, I cannot let the tone of the original question go uncommented upon: it is not acceptable. It is asking for flames. Please: more light, less heat.

Br Maximos
moderator

As a former Baptist, I thought it was ridiculous to baptize infants. Howerver, there is an ancient saying that most Baptists like myself never thought of (because we're too busy trying to figure out the Bible instead of listening to the fathers): Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi. Forgive the Latin phrase on a Byzantine board, but it means "the rule of prayer is the rule of faith".

This is important, because most Christians teach their children (whether they baptize their infants or not) to pray "Our Father...". If someone teaches their children to pray that way, that implies something--namely God is their "Father". For those of us who baptize our children, we have a concrete event we can point out to our children to show them when they became God's children: baptism. In baptism we become incorporated into Christ and become children of the King. For baptized children, they can truly say "Our Father...". Now if they are truly properly children of God, then they have the privilege of being a child of God which is participating in the Sacramental life. If you deny them the Eucharist, you deny them their birthright and you deny that they are children of God. If we teach them to pray "Our Father..." and if we teach them that God is their Father, we should admit them to His Table.

Cyprian, a Western Father, wrote, "Infants are as capable of baptism as are adults and share equally in the divine gift given in baptism. Having thus been baptized in the Spirit, the newborn drink from the Lord's cup and are both baptized and sanctified."

The Council of Trent did not forbid infant communion because at that time some dioceses were still maintaining the practice. So the
Council simply stated that it was not necessary for salvation for infants to receive communion. We know that infant communion was being given in France until at least 1609, because the local council of Narbonne had to forbid the practice. This, of course, is thirteen years after the Council of Brest! So the practice of infant
communion in the West is well attested, and the question of infant communion is not exclusively an Eastern question.

Joe Prokopchak
the archsinner

In response to Dr. John...

I fear that I am neither geographically on the West Coast, nor physically equipped to receive incoming aircraft (though I can lose luggage JUST FINE). The "SFO" commemorates the astonishing lack of judgment displayed by the (Byzantine) Secular Franciscans, with whom this notorious sinner was professed on the eve of Pentecost this year.

As for my children being regular communicants - if they are in church for Divine Liturgy, they are fed. (We've been running into some schedule problems of late, but that's another issue - has to do with horribly hot weather, illness & some unavoidably late nights...) Any other practice would make no sense - they are fully initiated members of the Body of Christ, and excommunication is a serious penalty.....even "temporary" excommunication lasting "only" 7 years..

Cheers,


Sharon Mech, SFO
Cantor & sinner (located in CMH)
sharon@cmhc.com

jbonk,

Leave the turtles out of this.
Thank you.

Elias