Of course I don't think changes are always positive. I just do not see that these changes have to be given the worst possible interpretation (e.g., by using the term "excommunication").
St. Thomas Aquinas explained with luminous clarity that anyone who is baptized into Christ is already a member of His Body and is ordered thereby to Eucha…
Of course I don't think changes are always positive. I just do not see that these changes have to be given the worst possible interpretation (e.g., by using the term "excommunication").
St. Thomas Aquinas explained with luminous clarity that anyone who is baptized into Christ is already a member of His Body and is ordered thereby to Eucharistic communion; this means someone who is baptized but dies before receiving Communion does not lose the spiritual reality of communion (as if they would run afoul of John 6: "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood..."). That is, the eating and drinking are ordered to the perfect union, which a child before the age of committing sin cannot lose anyhow.
So if one wanted to emphasize the personal side of the Eucharistic communing, that is, that it should be eating and drinking with discernment, with faith, with knowledge of what one is doing - esp. because it is not a sacrament of necessity the way baptism is - it might very well develop into a desire to give communion only to those who are conscientious about what they are doing. And thus was born the delay in communion.
You don't have to think it's the best practice, but for you to condemn it outright is simply to reject a huge number of Western saints who defended the custom. And it is to slide into an antiquarianism that assumes the contrary of what you said in your post, namely, that older is ALWAYS better. This is the reverse of saying newer is always better. There's a good reason the Church, East & West, stopped giving communion in the hand, for instance; and I don't see you arguing for that as superior.
If the Church has custody over sacramental practice, such as the requirements for receiving any given sacrament, then surely she would have the authority to make changes like that. And no, I don't think that *necessarily* plays into sacramental reductionism because it does not follow that those who give communion under one kind or only to older children *must also* despise their liturgical heritage. In point of fact, we see the opposite: everyone in the West adheres to the traditional Latin rites and uses until the 20th century. Aquinas, by the way, is only teaching on this point something that can be found in Eastern theologians too, even if they don't draw the same conclusion about praxis.
Of course I don't think changes are always positive. I just do not see that these changes have to be given the worst possible interpretation (e.g., by using the term "excommunication").
St. Thomas Aquinas explained with luminous clarity that anyone who is baptized into Christ is already a member of His Body and is ordered thereby to Eucharistic communion; this means someone who is baptized but dies before receiving Communion does not lose the spiritual reality of communion (as if they would run afoul of John 6: "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood..."). That is, the eating and drinking are ordered to the perfect union, which a child before the age of committing sin cannot lose anyhow.
So if one wanted to emphasize the personal side of the Eucharistic communing, that is, that it should be eating and drinking with discernment, with faith, with knowledge of what one is doing - esp. because it is not a sacrament of necessity the way baptism is - it might very well develop into a desire to give communion only to those who are conscientious about what they are doing. And thus was born the delay in communion.
You don't have to think it's the best practice, but for you to condemn it outright is simply to reject a huge number of Western saints who defended the custom. And it is to slide into an antiquarianism that assumes the contrary of what you said in your post, namely, that older is ALWAYS better. This is the reverse of saying newer is always better. There's a good reason the Church, East & West, stopped giving communion in the hand, for instance; and I don't see you arguing for that as superior.
If the Church has custody over sacramental practice, such as the requirements for receiving any given sacrament, then surely she would have the authority to make changes like that. And no, I don't think that *necessarily* plays into sacramental reductionism because it does not follow that those who give communion under one kind or only to older children *must also* despise their liturgical heritage. In point of fact, we see the opposite: everyone in the West adheres to the traditional Latin rites and uses until the 20th century. Aquinas, by the way, is only teaching on this point something that can be found in Eastern theologians too, even if they don't draw the same conclusion about praxis.