Talk:Infant communion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peer review Infant communion has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Contents

[edit] Bias

I think this article is rather obviously biased. However, I know very little about the topic myself, and in fact am biased toward the opposite POV of that expressed in the article as it stands. I'm going to check Google and try to learn something about this so I can try to fix it up, but someone more informed and neutral ought to take a crack at this. =| --Jen Moakler 5 July 2005 04:51 (UTC)

Biased? I am simply one whose 28-year old son has been denied the Eucharist because he is mentally retarded. It came to my attention years ago, however, that the apostolic faith allowed even infants to receive the Eucharist. So I am somewhat determined that the truth taught by the Apostles should not get lost. Even the Council of Trent, which ended the practice, admitted that the traditions of the Church in both East and West Allowed for infant communion.

The issue has become even more important in recent years given the prominence given to abortion. All too many Christians have bought into the secular agenda, which claims that freedom takes precedence over responsibility. Even Catholics and Mainline Protestants have fallen into that trap. But I ask, how many of those mothers and fathers have taken their infant children to receive Christ's Precious Body and Blood? And why should they condemn abortion when the Church denies them the very thing which Christ said they should not be denied? Clearly, the Church is simply not doing enough to fight abortion. A return to apostolic tradition is the only legitimate way out.

I understand, of courses, why the Council of Trent ended the apostolic practice. Protestants denied the efficacy of infant baptism. The Sacred Council did not wish to see them offended by having infant Communion added to the error of infant baptism. So they thought it best to betray children to please Protestants. I understand. I do not condemn them. They did what they thought was best. Nevertheless, their actions have consequences, do they not? Not even a Sacred Council can avoid that.

I remain a dedicated Catholic. I live within two miles of two Orthodox Churches which would happily give my son the Eucharist, in accordance with their traditions, but I have never gone to either of them. So please remove your accusations from the article and let the simple truth shine forth unhindered.

--Sophroniscus 5 July 2005 17:39 (UTC)

Sir, I'm terribly sorry to hear about your situation. I understand and respect your point of view. My point, however, is that the article should try to be neutral, giving equal prominence to both views, for and against the practice. --Jen Moakler 5 July 2005 17:55 (UTC)

I have no objection to the idea that these points might be made in a manner that is more politically correct, as long as it is clearly expressed.

The restriction might not seem very important, except to one, like myself, who has to deal with mental retardation. And now days, of course, many people ignore the restriction. But over the years many, many people have been denied full membership in the Church so that priests do not have to bother with them. Where is Christ's love in such a Church?

--Sophroniscus 7 July 2005 22:00 (UTC)

Thanks for putting this up for Peer Review. I appreciate that you're so willing to see that this gets balanced out. --Jen Moakler 7 July 2005 23:01 (UTC)

I'm not a hostile person. I simply want the truth to be preserved. There are too many who would like to cover it up.

I've made some changes, I'm not done, yet... --Sophroniscus 8 July 2005 16:49 (UTC)

I've made a few changes... --Sophroniscus 22:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

I made some edits to make this article more NPOV. The Protestant section was entirely incorrect; that's been pretty much rewritten. The rest is hopefully at least on its way to being NPOV. KHM03 17:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Source?

"A second reason sometimes given is that the practice would offend the Anabaptists since they reject Infant Baptism."

Does anyone have a (Catholic?) source giving this reason? If so, we should link it in the article. Otherwise, maybe it ought to be taken out? --Jen Moakler 20:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Big edit

I've moved the draft from Essjay's sandbox, as it seems to me to be a very good way to cover the subject as neutrally as possible. I've moved the "Mentally Retarded" section to Communion for the Disabled, as Essjay suggested elsewhere, in order to keep this article on track. If Sophroniscus (or anyone else) would like to help flesh out that article, that would be great. JHCC (talk) 18:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Big Edit, indeed!

I shall have to give serious thought to this. I'm not necessarily opposed to these changes. I think, though that...

(1) There should be some reference to the Eastern-Rite Catholics. My reason for this -- aside from my love for both the Byzantine Catholic Church and the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church is to show that there is nothing contrary to Catholic Doctrine in the practice.

(2) There are a number of Protestant Denominations which allow the practice. http://www.paedocommunion.com/churches.php. Thus one might object to the statement: " Infant communion is not practiced in most other Christian denominations, including the Roman Catholic Church." I, for one, can not say what most denominations do, though I suspect that the statement, as it stands, is technically correct.

Beyond that, I would say that because the changes are so significant, it will take time for me to determine what has been added, changed or deleted. Sophroniscus

I think it looks good; well done! KHM03 23:52, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
I've clarified the intro to include the current practice in Eastern-Rite Catholic and to soften the "not practiced in most" phrase. I'd point out, regarding Sophroniscus's first concern above, that the Eastern Rite is covered in the "Catholicism" section. JHCC (talk) 00:41, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eastern Rites

The Eastern Rites are simply not Roman Catholicism. They are completely separate churches in Hierarchical communion with the Roman Church. The Byzantine Catholic Church is, in many ways closer to Eastern Orthodoxy than to the Roman Church. Other Eastern Rite Churches are likewise similar to their respective Orthodox (or unorthodox) churches. The Syro-Malabar Catholic Church, for example, is similar to the Indian Orthodox Church -- which is far from what one might normally think of as orthodox. --Sophroniscus 00:55, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

True enough. That's why Jen changed the section heading from "Roman Catholicism" to "Catholicism". JHCC (talk) 03:16, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wow

Wow, good job everyone. :) Just read through it, as you can see by the series of minor edits I made on my way through, and I found it to be a most enjoyable read. Well done. --Jen Moakler 00:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bread/Host

Reverted change in Orthodoxy section. The Orthodox do not generally use the term "Host". The bread is technically called the "Lamb" both before and after consecration, until it is broken before communion. After consecration, the bread and wine are called the "Holy Body and Precious Blood", and the bread itself is also sometimes called the "Holy Bread". However, there's nothing theologically wrong, from an Orthodox standpoint, of referring to it as bread or consecrated bread, especially in a purely descriptive context. JHCC (talk) 02:29, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I'd be more comfortable with "consecrated bread" than simply "bread", but "consecrated bread" three times in the same paragraph would be rather poor style. I'm not thinking of reverting back - I can see that it would be bad manners to go in and mess around with Orthodox terminology, since I'm not Orthodox. Is there a way it could be reworded that would keep everyone happy? Ann Heneghan 15:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Leave it as it is. It is obvious that we're talking about consecrated bread and wine in every instance in this section. Insisting on "consecrated" each time would be both pedantic and (as you say) poor style. JHCC (talk) 16:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scrupulosity/Both Kinds

(1) It is absurd to deny that scrupulosity was a major factor. There came a time when few people received the Eucharist in either form, consecrated bread or wine.

(2) The question of whether one ought to receive Communion under one or both kinds is irrelevant to the article. What is relevant is the fact that the chalice was denied to the people. That fact, in turn, meant that baptized infants had no proper means to receive the Eucharist. Perhaps that would be a good idea for another article...

(3) The idea of restricting the Eucharist contrary to the Gospel is the problem. "Suffer the little children to come unto me..." Christ did not say Suffer the big children to come unto me... Nor did He say Suffer the smart children to come unto me...

--Sophroniscus 00:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

While you may have a point, removing the changes made by User:Ann Heneghan doesn't seem like the best option. I, for one, thought the arguments she presented were valid. As far as I know, uncertainty about the amount of wine to consecrate is currently a reason to restrict the chalice to the priest and other ministers. Maybe a compromise can be struck. I'll take a crack at it...--Jen Moakler 00:29, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
One may like many things that are irrelevant. Liking something doesn't make it relevant. Perhaps there is already an article on Communion under both kinds. If there isn't one, perhaps there should be. But it is merely a digression from the topic at hand. --Sophroniscus 01:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Hi, Sophroniscus. If you check my edit summary again, you'll notice that I did not deny that scrupulosity prevented (and indeed still prevents) some people from receiving Holy Communion. What I denied - and still deny - is that scrupulosity had anything to do with the custom of people receiving under one species only. I have never heard of a case where someone imagined that he was in mortal sin, and therefore received only the Host, not daring to receive from the Chalice. The Church teaching is that if you receive one particle of the Host, or one drop from the Chalice, you receive Christ whole and entire - Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. You don't for example, receive more of Christ by receiving a bigger Host; nor do you receive more graces.
There has always been a danger of spillage from the Chalice. If the Host, falls, it can be picked up. It's more difficult to recover the Precious Blood from the floor. It's also forbidden to keep the consecrated wine after Mass, unless one is bringing it to a sick person. It has to be consumed at the end of Mass. The Host can simply be put in the Tabernacle. So, Communion under both kinds isn't very practicable when there are large crowds. I believe that the Church also wished to emphasize the teaching that Christ was present fully under either form. So there were various factors which led to the withdrawal of the Chalice from the laity. But there was never a time when it was believed that a person's sins (real or imagined) would make him or her unworthy to receive from the Chalice but not unworthy to receive the Host. Indeed, 1 Corinthians 11:27 - a verse often used to defend the Catholic teaching that Christ is fully present under either kind - says that anyone who eats the Bread OR drinks the Cup unworthily will be guilty of profaning the Body AND Blood of the Lord (my emphasis, obviously).
I agree with you that whether one should receive under one species or under both is irrelevant to the article on Infant Communion. I agree that very young infants would not be able to receive the Host. However, I think it is misleading for the article to say that scrupulosity led to the reception of Communion under the form of bread alone. Under Church teaching - and this has always been the case - if you are in mortal sin, you mustn't receive at all. If you're not in mortal sin, then you can receive fully under one species, or (if it's permitted in your particular country and century and parish) under both forms.
Jen, I think you made a good shot at the compromise. Thanks. Ann Heneghan 14:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. =) --Jen Moakler 17:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] References

Hmmm... What's the difference between a reference and an external link? They look the same to me... --Sophroniscus 15:15 26 July 2005

They're the same only if the reference is online. In this case, it's a book reference and appears as a link to a page containing an excerpt --which coincidentally bears on the topic at hand -- and a link to purchase it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting Reference

The reference given "Armentrout, Don S.; Slocum, Robert Boak. (eds.) An Episcopal Dictionary of the Church, A User Friendly Reference for Episcopalians (2005)" contains an interesting statement...

"In the thirteenth century increased scrupulosity led to withholding the chalice from the laity, which had the effect of excommunicating small children because they had already been denied the bread."

It seems that I am not the only one who sees a certain amount of scrupulosity in the practice. --Sophroniscus 15:15 26 July 2005

[edit] Saint Augustine

The article says that Saint Augustine was in favour of Infant Communion. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Saint Augustine also promote adult Baptism? So doesn't this mean he supported people taking the Eucharist before they've even been Baptised?J.J. Bustamante 05:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

He favored infant baptism. See [1]. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/n/f/Talk%7EInfant_communion_8a11.html"