Honestly this is one of the most trenchant critiques of the Latin Church I have heard. When Orthodox say they can’t in good conscience be in communion with those who would withhold grace from their children for so many years, I find it rather challenging to give a good response.
I will dissent here- the West (i.e. the Roman Rite) should not return to Paedocommunion.
In fact, there was significant dissent among the earliest bishops - before St. Augustine- not just merely about paedocommunion, but also for Infant Baptism. Yes, clearly, Infant Baptism clearly prevailed throughout the Christian World, but as the different Rites within the Catholic Church became distinct, they began to develop & maintain their own pastoral practices & sacramental theologies. This was evident in early Christianity with the Rites of Initiation of adult catechumens- new Christians were +baptized only+ and then segregated from practicing Christians who would receive the Eucharist in a separate room. Over time, the Latin West discerned that because the Eucharistic Mystery is so profound and so sacred, it wanted to ensure that the new converts were fully educated in the Faith and told what they were receiving before it was offered to them.
The Latin Rite considers infants who are baptized to be fully in communion with its other members, but it believes that those who receive the Eucharist be mature enough to appreciate this gift and receive Christ in conscious faith.
Thank you Vince. No doubt the West turned in the 12th century toward receiving communion later and certainly baptism was delayed sometimes to the end of life in the early church. However, Baptism, Chrismation, & Communion were always given together, which is why they were called sacraments of initiation. My opinion is that they should all be given at once and that having adequate knowledge isn't necessary. Babies do not need to fully understand baptism to receive baptism nor do they need to understand the Mass to attend Mass. My framework of Christianity is a bit different. Grace can be received by infants without knowing in the same way they can benefit from milk from their mother without knowing how it all works. Yet, the bonding experience between a mother and baby is most profound! In the same way, communion for infants can begin the bonding experience between Christ and child. Reverence will be spring up from this bonding experience. If a child grows up in a reverent family, they will generally be reverent. If a child grows up in a irreverent family. there will likely be issues. I mean, how many adults are irreverently receive communion among Catholic Churches all over the world?I I am mostly stating that reverence doesn't always come from information, but mystical wonder which a young child can begin to comprehend. Thanks for your comments and I totally respect your opinion. I have many friends who hold your position.
If we're being historically accurate with regards to the early Church, the sacraments of Initiation were +not+ always given together- that merging of the sacraments' disbursement is a later development in practice. This was most evident in St. Cyril's description of the process in his 4th. century catechetical lectures which describe Christian catechumens who were only given sacrament of baptism and then ritually separated from practicing Christians who would receive the Eucharist in a separate room.
There are differing sacramental theologies within the 7 principle Rites of the Catholic Church- i'm simply acknowledging that withholding Communion from infants is not "wrong" and has an ancient basis in the Early Church- as does Paedocommunion- but not all early bishops before St. Augustine or after him either advocated or adopted it. By the 12th century, the sacramental theology on Communion was more fully developed and trended away from paedocommunion- even St. Thomas Aquinas lent his support of the Age of Reason as a basis for receipt of Communion.
Thanks! 1) Are you speaking of St. Cyril of Jerusalem? Could you point me to those references and others? I am always willing to learn more. Historical reconstruction is definitely a difficult task and undoubtedly, there was diversity among the different liturgical rites in other areas, but I was under the impression that it was unanimous practice to give all 3 at once (admitting that there could be a delay in the West if the bishop wasn't present, but the bishop would still chrismate a baby and wasn't waiting for enough knowledge to arrive). 2) I never said it was heresy as baptism alone can be given in emergencies if no priest or bishop is around. Obviously, a layman baptizing isn't going to involve chrismation and first communion.
Vince, so far I have found no father who positively affirms that the sacraments of initiation are to be given separately under ordinary, liturgical circumstances (only baptism in emergencies). St. Cyril of Jerusalem states clearly that they received holy chrismation the night of their baptism and he speaks of it as a sacrament. In regards to the Eucharist, he seems to be silent when they received it . However, it would be very odd that the adult catechumens that he is speaking to wouldn't have received baptism, chrismation, and communion all at the Paschal vigil. I mean, they aren't going to receive the Eucharist on Easter??? No tradition has changed that for adults and that's who these catechetical lectures are directed to. https://lacopts.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/St.-Cyril-of-Jerusalem-Baptism.pdf
Kyle, appreciate your feedback. Perhaps we can start with this assumption- since each of the three Sacraments of Initiation were described and instituted in separate instances from each other in Scripture- in those passages, the 3 sacraments were not administered at the same time in the way they are with Eastern Catholics and Orthodox- that practice developed over time in certain regions and under certain bishops- all good.
My primary point is that this very practice is a later development within early Christianity- it was not the default universal practice- the sacraments were administered separately, and there was considerable disagreement within the early bishops not just regarding paedocommunion, but infant baptism in the 1st-3rd centuries.
Ergo, I’ve come to conclude that there is no set way that explicitly identified in which order the sacraments must be received outside of baptism being first. That is why Pope Benedict in Sacramentum Caritas said that baptism is “the portal to all the sacraments”. The variations in their timing and disbursement are pastoral and fall under the rightful jurisdiction of the local Church.
Vince, thank you and I also appreciate your thoughts. I am really not talking about what is permissible. I am talking about the historical evidence. For example, we have plenty of quotes from Latin fathers about the 3 being united for babies. Cyprian of Carthage, Augustine, Pope Leo, and Pope Innocent (who uses quite strong language). Scholars can generally track when this changed in the Latin West w/ small changes beginning the 8th & 9th century, and eventually everyone Latin by the 13th century. The Assyrian Church of the East (Persia), the Oriental Orthodox (Armenian, Coptic, Syriac, etc), and the Eastern Orthodox have no written memory of there ever being a change. So I don't think it is a far stretch to say that the Apostles formalized the sacraments of initiation by the end of their lives since it became a universal practice much like the Sign of the Cross, Fasting on Wednesdays & Fridays, etc. Again, I am making a historical case so I need earlier sources. (Also, I think a good case can be made that Joseph Ratzinger wanted to keep these 3 sacraments united and given at once says he it explicitly as the liturgical preference).
Wonderful exegesis on this topic! It would give me such joy to see our toddlers and baby receive Jesus in the Eucharist! This is one of the reasons my husband and I are drawn to eastern Catholicism.
Honestly this is one of the most trenchant critiques of the Latin Church I have heard. When Orthodox say they can’t in good conscience be in communion with those who would withhold grace from their children for so many years, I find it rather challenging to give a good response.
I will dissent here- the West (i.e. the Roman Rite) should not return to Paedocommunion.
In fact, there was significant dissent among the earliest bishops - before St. Augustine- not just merely about paedocommunion, but also for Infant Baptism. Yes, clearly, Infant Baptism clearly prevailed throughout the Christian World, but as the different Rites within the Catholic Church became distinct, they began to develop & maintain their own pastoral practices & sacramental theologies. This was evident in early Christianity with the Rites of Initiation of adult catechumens- new Christians were +baptized only+ and then segregated from practicing Christians who would receive the Eucharist in a separate room. Over time, the Latin West discerned that because the Eucharistic Mystery is so profound and so sacred, it wanted to ensure that the new converts were fully educated in the Faith and told what they were receiving before it was offered to them.
The Latin Rite considers infants who are baptized to be fully in communion with its other members, but it believes that those who receive the Eucharist be mature enough to appreciate this gift and receive Christ in conscious faith.
Thank you Vince. No doubt the West turned in the 12th century toward receiving communion later and certainly baptism was delayed sometimes to the end of life in the early church. However, Baptism, Chrismation, & Communion were always given together, which is why they were called sacraments of initiation. My opinion is that they should all be given at once and that having adequate knowledge isn't necessary. Babies do not need to fully understand baptism to receive baptism nor do they need to understand the Mass to attend Mass. My framework of Christianity is a bit different. Grace can be received by infants without knowing in the same way they can benefit from milk from their mother without knowing how it all works. Yet, the bonding experience between a mother and baby is most profound! In the same way, communion for infants can begin the bonding experience between Christ and child. Reverence will be spring up from this bonding experience. If a child grows up in a reverent family, they will generally be reverent. If a child grows up in a irreverent family. there will likely be issues. I mean, how many adults are irreverently receive communion among Catholic Churches all over the world?I I am mostly stating that reverence doesn't always come from information, but mystical wonder which a young child can begin to comprehend. Thanks for your comments and I totally respect your opinion. I have many friends who hold your position.
If we're being historically accurate with regards to the early Church, the sacraments of Initiation were +not+ always given together- that merging of the sacraments' disbursement is a later development in practice. This was most evident in St. Cyril's description of the process in his 4th. century catechetical lectures which describe Christian catechumens who were only given sacrament of baptism and then ritually separated from practicing Christians who would receive the Eucharist in a separate room.
There are differing sacramental theologies within the 7 principle Rites of the Catholic Church- i'm simply acknowledging that withholding Communion from infants is not "wrong" and has an ancient basis in the Early Church- as does Paedocommunion- but not all early bishops before St. Augustine or after him either advocated or adopted it. By the 12th century, the sacramental theology on Communion was more fully developed and trended away from paedocommunion- even St. Thomas Aquinas lent his support of the Age of Reason as a basis for receipt of Communion.
Thanks! 1) Are you speaking of St. Cyril of Jerusalem? Could you point me to those references and others? I am always willing to learn more. Historical reconstruction is definitely a difficult task and undoubtedly, there was diversity among the different liturgical rites in other areas, but I was under the impression that it was unanimous practice to give all 3 at once (admitting that there could be a delay in the West if the bishop wasn't present, but the bishop would still chrismate a baby and wasn't waiting for enough knowledge to arrive). 2) I never said it was heresy as baptism alone can be given in emergencies if no priest or bishop is around. Obviously, a layman baptizing isn't going to involve chrismation and first communion.
Give me some time and I'll try to provide cites to the exact passages in the texts for your review.
Vince, so far I have found no father who positively affirms that the sacraments of initiation are to be given separately under ordinary, liturgical circumstances (only baptism in emergencies). St. Cyril of Jerusalem states clearly that they received holy chrismation the night of their baptism and he speaks of it as a sacrament. In regards to the Eucharist, he seems to be silent when they received it . However, it would be very odd that the adult catechumens that he is speaking to wouldn't have received baptism, chrismation, and communion all at the Paschal vigil. I mean, they aren't going to receive the Eucharist on Easter??? No tradition has changed that for adults and that's who these catechetical lectures are directed to. https://lacopts.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/St.-Cyril-of-Jerusalem-Baptism.pdf
Kyle, appreciate your feedback. Perhaps we can start with this assumption- since each of the three Sacraments of Initiation were described and instituted in separate instances from each other in Scripture- in those passages, the 3 sacraments were not administered at the same time in the way they are with Eastern Catholics and Orthodox- that practice developed over time in certain regions and under certain bishops- all good.
My primary point is that this very practice is a later development within early Christianity- it was not the default universal practice- the sacraments were administered separately, and there was considerable disagreement within the early bishops not just regarding paedocommunion, but infant baptism in the 1st-3rd centuries.
Ergo, I’ve come to conclude that there is no set way that explicitly identified in which order the sacraments must be received outside of baptism being first. That is why Pope Benedict in Sacramentum Caritas said that baptism is “the portal to all the sacraments”. The variations in their timing and disbursement are pastoral and fall under the rightful jurisdiction of the local Church.
Vince, thank you and I also appreciate your thoughts. I am really not talking about what is permissible. I am talking about the historical evidence. For example, we have plenty of quotes from Latin fathers about the 3 being united for babies. Cyprian of Carthage, Augustine, Pope Leo, and Pope Innocent (who uses quite strong language). Scholars can generally track when this changed in the Latin West w/ small changes beginning the 8th & 9th century, and eventually everyone Latin by the 13th century. The Assyrian Church of the East (Persia), the Oriental Orthodox (Armenian, Coptic, Syriac, etc), and the Eastern Orthodox have no written memory of there ever being a change. So I don't think it is a far stretch to say that the Apostles formalized the sacraments of initiation by the end of their lives since it became a universal practice much like the Sign of the Cross, Fasting on Wednesdays & Fridays, etc. Again, I am making a historical case so I need earlier sources. (Also, I think a good case can be made that Joseph Ratzinger wanted to keep these 3 sacraments united and given at once says he it explicitly as the liturgical preference).
Wonderful exegesis on this topic! It would give me such joy to see our toddlers and baby receive Jesus in the Eucharist! This is one of the reasons my husband and I are drawn to eastern Catholicism.