This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Infant communion received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
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. =| --User:Jenmoa 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)
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)
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)
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)
"A second reason sometimes given is that the practice would offend the Anabaptists since they reject Infant Baptism."
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)
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
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)
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. --User:Jenmoa 00:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
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)
(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)
Hmmm... What's the difference between a reference and an external link? They look the same to me... --Sophroniscus 15:15 26 July 2005
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...
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
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Infant communion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Infant communion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)