FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums
Eucharist before confirmation??? - Printable Version

+- FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Church (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+--- Forum: Catholicism (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: Eucharist before confirmation??? (/showthread.php?tid=86131)

Pages: 1 2


RE: Eucharist before confirmation??? - jovan66102 - 02-12-2020

(02-12-2020, 05:19 PM)everbecoming2007 Wrote: It is not the same. 

Why? The Church has developed Her (small 't') traditions over centuries under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. If you can just jettison centuries of organic development, nothing is safe. As I said, the same argument was used to do untold damage to the Church.

Why do infants need the Sacrament? Until they reach the age of reason and become capable of sin, they are always in a State of Grace.

It sounds like an 'Easternisation' to me. I am an Easterner and I oppose grafting Eastern practices onto the Western Church just as strenuously as I oppose Latinisations of the Eastern Rites.



RE: Eucharist before confirmation??? - yablabo - 02-12-2020

I find it incredibly alarming that confirmation is being delayed in this region of the USA later and later.  Sometimes children are not confirmed until they are in their teens, or legally (i.e., Canon law) of marrying age.  Confirmation is so important that it's listed by the great Councils of Florence and Trent as the second sacrament by which we boldly confess the name of Christ never shirking.  I believe from my personal study, that holy confirmation is essential for a young person to maintain the rule of the true faith on his own.  Giving them the holy Eucharist prior to either their ability to discern the sacred species from ordinary food, or their ability to operate the supernatural virtue of faith on their own in a salvific fashion is so very dangerous...  and we're reaping the rewards with the early loss of faith amongst the young people which leads to countless sins against God, their neighbors and their own bodies.  We're told that the reward for receiving the holy Eucharist without discerning the body and blood...many are infirm and weak...and asleep.


RE: Eucharist before confirmation??? - newenglandsun - 02-13-2020

(02-12-2020, 09:32 PM)yablabo Wrote: I find it incredibly alarming that confirmation is being delayed in this region of the USA later and later.  Sometimes children are not confirmed until they are in their teens, or legally (i.e., Canon law) of marrying age.  Confirmation is so important that it's listed by the great Councils of Florence and Trent as the second sacrament by which we boldly confess the name of Christ never shirking.  I believe from my personal study, that holy confirmation is essential for a young person to maintain the rule of the true faith on his own.  Giving them the holy Eucharist prior to either their ability to discern the sacred species from ordinary food, or their ability to operate the supernatural virtue of faith on their own in a salvific fashion is so very dangerous...  and we're reaping the rewards with the early loss of faith amongst the young people which leads to countless sins against God, their neighbors and their own bodies.  We're told that the reward for receiving the holy Eucharist without discerning the body and blood...many are infirm and weak...and asleep.
There is some truth. Though confirmation is a sacrament, a grace. Faith precedes understanding so spoke the prophet. It is a discernment in faith that is needed and that is what confirmation gives us by sealing us with the gift of the Holy Spirit.


RE: Eucharist before confirmation??? - newenglandsun - 02-13-2020

(02-12-2020, 05:32 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(02-12-2020, 05:19 PM)everbecoming2007 Wrote: It is not the same. 

Why? The Church has developed Her (small 't') traditions over centuries under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. If you can just jettison centuries of organic development, nothing is safe. As I said, the same argument was used to do untold damage to the Church.

Why do infants need the Sacrament? Until they reach the age of reason and become capable of sin, they are always in a State of Grace.

It sounds like an 'Easternisation' to me. I am an Easterner and I oppose grafting Eastern practices onto the Western Church just as strenuously as I oppose Latinisations of the Eastern Rites.
Well the Eucharist is the body and blood of God. So by denying infants communion, I do wonder if we are suffering not the children to come.

That said, it would be fair to argue that granting the priest full authority to perform the sacrament would be an "Easternization". Since in the West, the sacraments became separated from each other for this reason.

In other words, taking into account where the organic development took place leads one to the only logical conclusion that the "centuries of development" that led us to the situation were drastically artificial developments that had minimal to do with infant communion and perhaps more to do with an intrusion of the dominance of intellectual reasoning in the West taking over faith.


RE: Eucharist before confirmation??? - MagisterMusicae - 02-13-2020

(02-13-2020, 11:44 AM)newenglandsun Wrote: In other words, taking into account where the organic development took place leads one to the only logical conclusion that the "centuries of development" that led us to the situation were drastically artificial developments that had minimal to do with infant communion and perhaps more to do with an intrusion of the dominance of intellectual reasoning in the West taking over faith.

Which is just as sensible as arguing that the tolerance of Eastern clergy violating the Apostolic tradition, and not only marrying (which was done even in the West) but engaging in marital relations after their ordination, had little to do with the Faith, and perhaps more to do with the inability of Eastern clergy to practice chastity despite the graces of the Sacraments.

Or that the East always had a problem with authority and humility because of their more mystical approach, and that is why the vast majority went into Schism in the middle ages.

We can say this, but the reason it is not fair to is because the situation is far more complex and to reduce it to mere stereotypes is not helpful.

It's not fair to take shots at the West as if accidental changes to its practices which differed from the East due to differing conditions between East and West were some abandoning of the Faith, just as it's not fair to take shots at the Eastern Uniates for historical schism or relaxed practice of clerical marital chastity.

If you're going to say that the order of Sacraments should be changed in the West, then there is an even greater case that Eastern clergy should be immediately forced to be celibate or perpetually continent. Both would be an unreasonable demand.

Add to this that the Eastern Catholic population compromises less than 2% of the Catholic Church, so it's a bit of an odd thing for such a small percentage to complain that the practice that developed in 98% of the rest of the Church needs to be changed.


RE: Eucharist before confirmation??? - newenglandsun - 02-13-2020

(02-13-2020, 03:05 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(02-13-2020, 11:44 AM)newenglandsun Wrote: In other words, taking into account where the organic development took place leads one to the only logical conclusion that the "centuries of development" that led us to the situation were drastically artificial developments that had minimal to do with infant communion and perhaps more to do with an intrusion of the dominance of intellectual reasoning in the West taking over faith.

Which is just as sensible as arguing that the tolerance of Eastern clergy violating the Apostolic tradition, and not only marrying (which was done even in the West) but engaging in marital relations after their ordination, had little to do with the Faith, and perhaps more to do with the inability of Eastern clergy to practice chastity despite the graces of the Sacraments.

Or that the East always had a problem with authority and humility because of their more mystical approach, and that is why the vast majority went into Schism in the middle ages.

We can say this, but the reason it is not fair to is because the situation is far more complex and to reduce it to mere stereotypes is not helpful.

It's not fair to take shots at the West as if accidental changes to its practices which differed from the East due to differing conditions between East and West were some abandoning of the Faith, just as it's not fair to take shots at the Eastern Uniates for historical schism or relaxed practice of clerical marital chastity.

If you're going to say that the order of Sacraments should be changed in the West, then there is an even greater case that Eastern clergy should be immediately forced to be celibate or perpetually continent. Both would be an unreasonable demand.

Add to this that the Eastern Catholic population compromises less than 2% of the Catholic Church, so it's a bit of an odd thing for such a small percentage to complain that the practice that developed in 98% of the rest of the Church needs to be changed.
Well most of what you say is accurate and reasonable but the ancient Western practice was to delay the Eucharist until after confirmation which is my main point. That said, infants receiving communion if they are confirmed isn't problematic theology. The problem is the unconfirmed receiving communion. So we'll save the topic of infant communion for another thread.


RE: Eucharist before confirmation??? - MagisterMusicae - 02-13-2020

(02-13-2020, 03:38 PM)newenglandsun Wrote: Well most of what you say is accurate and reasonable but the ancient Western practice was to delay the Eucharist until after confirmation which is my main point.

And that, just as Communion under one species alone were developments which accorded with particular circumstances in the West. Thus customs and traditions, contrary to the earlier ones developed, none of which touch on the essence of the Faith or these Sacraments.

It was not as if, like with the Novus Ordo Missæ, that at one moment a new practice was imposed based on a specific plan. The changes happened organically in response to particular circumstances. So, given that it was not some immediate switch, but a gradual process, the benefit of the doubt on this ought to be on the reasons for the change being sufficient, not in having to justify them.

This is very much like if a school which was a few hundred years old had its routine changed gradually with the introduction of technology over the last 100 years. One would not complain that the newer procedures were not in keeping with the older ones and they needed to now be justified or changed back, but rather the assumption would be that there was good thought and reflection in the series of changes which never were previously questioned.


(02-13-2020, 03:38 PM)newenglandsun Wrote: The problem is the unconfirmed receiving communion.

I fail to see the problem.

The analogy of the Sacraments is to our natural life. We are born into life (Baptism), we are fed (Eucharist), we grow into an adult (Confirmation), we are healed of our wounds and sickness (Penance and Extreme Unction), we have an institution for procreation and raising children (Marriage), and we have rulers to guide us (Orders).

If we follow this analogy, then feeding those who need food is in no way something one just waits for adulthood to give.

Naturally, then the objection is infants, as you suggest we put off. While yes, perhaps that should be put off, I'd remind you of St Paul's comments to the Corinthians, that we are meant to discern the Body and Blood of Christ, so while clearly he means, primarily, sin, secondarily, it is clear that the degree of the at least some of the graces we receive from Communion depends on our preparedness and devotion, which requires the use of reason.


RE: Eucharist before confirmation??? - newenglandsun - 02-14-2020

History of the sacrament considered.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04215b.htm

Note: Council of Trent recommends it be held until the age of 7 but allows it for all the baptized.