First Communion horror

Michael G

Forget all the jokes about fake tan and stretch limos in Tallaght. I've just been to a First Communion in a Catholic church in one of the wealthier parts of Dublin. Horrific. Lots of yummy mummies dressed to thrill, with at least one looking like an up-market escort. Noise and chattering throughout; camera flashes going off constantly. Even when the priest was trying to lead the children in quiet prayer after they had received Communion, some of them were being chatted to by their parents. He was a poor, innocent old priest, who had obviously swallowed every bit of what was then trendy guff in the years after Vatican II, trying to please everyone with chatty remarks. In fairness to him, he did try to get across one or two of the most important points, such as the actual presence of Christ in the Sacrament, but there wasn't anyone listening except perhaps for a handful of the unfortunate children.

A Sacrament is a Sacrament, and no doubt God was working in there somewhere, but it was a most depressing and disgusting event. There must be better ways of doing this.

KTRIC

Wait until they are old enough to do it themselves, solves a lot of problems. At least the will be there receiving their first communion because they want it and not their mothers.

Michael G

There's a lot of sense in what you say. But I don't think these children were there because their mothers wanted them to receive their First Communion. I don't think their mothers, or most of them, cared in the least. This was a social event, not a religious one.

kelly1

KTRIC wrote:

Wait until they are old enough to do it themselves, solves a lot of problems. At least the will be there receiving their first communion because they want it and not their mothers.

Hello KTRIC,

It's not the children's fault that the parents don't show respect for the Blessed Sacrament. The focus should be on the sacrament the children are receiving and should be a time for joy and holiness. They should keep the cameras and chattering for outside the church.

Matthew 19:14 But Jesus said to them: Suffer the little children, and forbid them not to come to me: for the kingdom of heaven is for such.

Noel.

philologos

Well Noel, surely children can come to God in His Church at any stage regardless of whether they have had their first communion or not. I think Baptism should be a time when on finding one's faith in God, through their own initative they should choose to be marked as a Christian and as one of God's true servants. Not on the initative of their parents.

Sangre

As you've already stated, baptism/1st commuion/confirmations in Ireland are rarely about religion. They are social events that they are expected to attend due to peer pressure and the desire not to be left out.

Tbh, I think its the same reason some calls themselves catholic even though they are utterly lapsed. To many they think you're not Irish if you're not Roman catholic (in name anyway).

Although baptism is slightly different as its required to attend a lot of schools in Ireland.

PoleStar

Just wondering.

Can the priest not ban cameras and the like during the ceremony?

I myself am a proud atheist (please dont hate me!!) but I have to side with you guys on this one as I find it such behavious extremely irritating and moreso that it shows such lack of respect for anyone that actually may have an interest in what the ceremony means as opposed to being seen to do the right thing i.e. tick the box on the social calender marked "Communion".

Why cant the priest stop int he middle of the ceremony and request this?

kelly1

PoleStar wrote:

Just wondering.

Can the priest not ban cameras and the like during the ceremony?

I myself am a proud atheist (please dont hate me!!) but I have to side with you guys on this one as I find it such behavious extremely irritating and moreso that it shows such lack of respect for anyone that actually may have an interest in what the ceremony means as opposed to being seen to do the right thing i.e. tick the box on the social calender marked "Communion".

Why cant the priest stop int he middle of the ceremony and request this?

In general, I don't think priests have the guts to admonish the congregation. They're afraid it would get people's backs up with the result that the Church would loose more members. If people put the social aspect of First Holy Communion before the sacrament, they might be better off not coming at all.

Noel.

Frequent

Frequent wrote:

Its the same for all sacramental traditions. What has infant baptism done to baptism? Well our shoddy implementation has made adult baptism seem sensible! In the same way, the universality of Eucharistic initiation has devalued it utterly.

So, make it for children who are part of practicing Catholic families and take the hit from outside, from people who hate the Catholic church, who will kick up a fuss.

I read that baptism used to be only for adults, not children since children couldn't decide. Maybe it was in some particular tradition. Ages back anyway.

Tar.Aldarion

kelly1 wrote:

In general, I don't think priests have the guts to admonish the congregation. They're afraid it would get people's backs up with the result that the Church would loose more members. If people put the social aspect of First Holy Communion before the sacrament, they might be better off not coming at all.

Noel.

If a member is lost so easy they probably are not members in the first place.
If you want it to stop being a social event then things will have to change. Wait until a child is old enough to make their own choice, it makes more sense and stops people having a deep hate for the church, because of what they were forced to do whilst growing up.

fatmammycat

"Lots of yummy mummies dressed to thrill, with at least one looking like an up-market escort."

Wow, could you be anymore condescending? What exactly does an up-market escort look like exactly? Well dressed? Smart? A woman?
You're whinging on about the ceremony-which frankly sounded lovely and inviting- and yet you just couldn't hep yourself from sneering at the mothers who brought their children to be a part of the church. Some christian.

kelly1

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

If a member is lost so easy they probably are not members in the first place.
If you want it to stop being a social event then things will have to change. Wait until a child is old enough to make their own choice, it makes more sense and stops people having a deep hate for the church, because of what they were forced to do whilst growing up.

It's debatable but I think children need to formed in the faith from the very start. I know some cynics will say "yeah, get them while they're young and brain-wash them". I disagree. Any parent who believes that Jesus is "The Way, the Truth and the Life" has a responsibility to nurture faith in the children. What chance will children have as adults if there left to make up their own minds having been exposed to all sort of false religions/prophets? They need a compass to show them the way. Sheep need to be constantly under the watchful eye of a good shepherd because there are an awful lot of wolves in sheeps clothing in this world. You can't leave something as important as the salvation of a child's soul to chance.

God bless,
Noel.

Tar.Aldarion

You can teach a child about a faith without forcing them to do the sacraments.
It would also stop the ridiculous first communions/ confirmations which are just about looking best to a lot of people.

6th

Michael G wrote:

Forget all the jokes about fake tan and stretch limos in Tallaght.

I find that reference offensive. I have been very active within the church in Tallaght in the past and every sunday (in my experience) the churches are very full. Sure people can go over the top but they are there wind and rain whether its a "special" occassion or not.

PoleStar

kelly1 wrote:

It's debatable but I think children need to formed in the faith from the very start. I know some cynics will say "yeah, get them while they're young and brain-wash them". I disagree. Any parent who believes that Jesus is "The Way, the Truth and the Life" has a responsibility to nurture faith in the children. What chance will children have as adults if there left to make up their own minds having been exposed to all sort of false religions/prophets? They need a compass to show them the way. Sheep need to be constantly under the watchful eye of a good shepherd because there are an awful lot of wolves in sheeps clothing in this world. You can't leave something as important as the salvation of a child's soul to chance.

God bless,
Noel.

I am one who will have to disagree. A child will believe what you tell them. Currently, an individuals religion is determined by 2 things. 1. The religion of their parents and 2. Where they are born. I think if it is the true religion then surely the individual should find that true path for themselves?

Anyway this is going off topic. Again (as an atheist!) i agree with the comment about inappropriate dress from parents. This just confirms to me what I have thought, and that is, a lot attend these ceremonies because its the done thing.

Michael G

6th wrote:

I find that reference offensive. I have been very active within the church in Tallaght in the past and every sunday (in my experience) the churches are very full. Sure people can go over the top but they are there wind and rain whether its a "special" occassion or not.

I said they were jokes. The point I was trying to make was that these yuppies were worse than anything, apocryphal or not, that one hears about the poorer parts of town.

Michael G

fatmammycat wrote:

"Lots of yummy mummies dressed to thrill, with at least one looking like an up-market escort."

Wow, could you be anymore condescending? What exactly does an up-market escort look like exactly? Well dressed? Smart? A woman?
You're whinging on about the ceremony-which frankly sounded lovely and inviting- and yet you just couldn't hep yourself from sneering at the mothers who brought their children to be a part of the church. Some christian.

Crimson halter-neck dress, with the halter straps just covering her breasts. Transparent pink shawl over it. And it was my girlfriend (a woman) who drew my attention to it.

Not many of those mothers last Saturday had "brought their children to be a part of the church," I'm afraid. This was just a social event.

PDN

Reminds me of the baptisms where people are asked to be godparents as a favour. You get the biggest drug dealer in town promising to provide spiritual guidance to the child.

barrett1965

This was a social event, not a religious one.

This is my feeling too.

imeatingchips

A girl in my nephews class actually missed her confirmation in May because - get this - by the time she'd her hair and makeup done it was too late... so they just went straight for the meal. UNBELIEVABLE. I'd say it was straight for the pi$$-up that they went. Sad.

tuxy

Don't take it so seriously, it's just a bit of fun for the kids.

kelly1

tuxy wrote:

Don't take it so seriously, it's just a bit of fun for the kids.

Do you really think the sacraments are just a bit of fun?? The sacraments are the means of salvation!! What a thing to say!

Michael G

tuxy wrote:

Don't take it so seriously, it's just a bit of fun for the kids.

But many people do take it seriously. The kind of thing I saw, which made me start this thread, was such arrogance and bad manners — to the other parents who might believe in the religious importance of the event, and to the unfortunate priest. And, ironically, the parents who behaved so badly were exactly the kind of upper-middle class people who would pride themselves on their command of the social graces in any other circumstances.

Medina

I would love to see a child who can explain what their first holy communion is practically and spiritually, why they are doing it, what it means for their lives, and what the basis for it is in religion.

If an eight year old can answer those questions then he is mature enough to do it himself.

If an eight year old cannot answer those questions then they are not mature enough to do it until they can answer all the questions...

.......since you say that sacraments are such an important thing.........

Tim Robbins

Medina wrote:

I would love to see a child who can explain what their first holy communion is practically and spiritually, why they are doing it, what it means for their lives, and what the basis for it is in religion.

If an eight year old can answer those questions then is is mature enough to do it himself.

If an eight year old cannot answer those questions then they are not mature enough to do it until they can answer all the questions...

.......since you say that sacraments are such an important thing.........

Well first of all thank you to Brian for allowing back on this colourful forum.
I apologise to any people I have offended in the past and will do my best not
to in future, probably by staying over in the A&A forum.

Just on this thread, I made my first communion and confirmation, I knew what they both meant and they were both a nice day.

As for what role it plays in a more secular society, I would feel sorry for the priest, I do think it's shame that for many Irish people both these days are just charades. I think people should have a good think about what they believe in, and respect people who don't come to the same conclusion. The Catholic Church could also have a think about the way those sacraments are administered. They could easily take the superficial and commercial element out of both days by encouraging kids not to get dressed up and wear expensive clothes and instead of kids going around asking for money, I would suggest they get the kids to do a bit of volunteer work.

I think this would be more in tune with Christianity, Catholism and a more compassionate society.

As for what role atheist parents should play in this. Well we are in an awkard position. Catholism still has a strong hold on Irish education and for many parents they have no choice to send their kids to a Catholic school in which case they kids end up having to participate in these ceremonies unless they want to be the "weirdo" who doesn't.

Ultimately, the state should run the schools and cater for all the citizens of the state.

Medina

Well Tim if you understood it, then can you now as a more-than-8-years-old person please answer my questions?

With reference to its basis in religion..please be specific about when and who brought the practice into existence..and Biblical evidence from Jesus that it is required ?

Tim Robbins

Medina wrote:

Well Tim if you understood it, then can you now as a more-than-8-years-old person please answer my questions?

With reference to its basis in religion..please be specific about when and who brought the practice into existence..and Biblical evidence from Jesus that it is required ?

This might answer some of your questions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Holy_Communion

A better reference would be the Catholic Enclyopedia.

There is no biblical evidence from Jesus that it is required (none that I know off). As I am sure you know, the Catholic church is not entirely scripture driven. Only fringe Christianity movements are, which ironically got their scripture from the Catholic Church.

Within Catholism, there is an emphasis on universality, tradition and other ideas from other Catholic philosophers, saints and theologians. That said, I have been outside the Church for over 17 years so someone else might answer your questions better than me.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote:

There is no biblical evidence from Jesus that it is required (none that I know off). As I am sure you know, the Catholic church is not entirely scripture driven. Only fringe Christianity movements are, which ironically got their scripture from the Catholic Church.

ROTFL

BrianCalgary

The Lords Supper or Communion was institued by Christ the night He was betrayed. His instruntion was to do it in memeory of Him.

He also said that th ewine was His blood and the bread was His body.

There are three ways of viewing the host. It becomes His body and blood, in a spiritual transformation (any RC please correct me if I misunderstand), purely symbolic of the body and blodd and finally; that although the host remains bread and wine, the Holy Spirit is present within the communion.

I lean to number 3 as an outright transformation doesn't seem right as it indicates within the RC right a sacrifice happening over again which makes Christ initial sacrififce as insufficient, I welcome RC views on this as I don't quite grasp the Rc understanding.

Symbolic is not enough for an institution began by Jesus, the other of baptism quite clearly has the presence of the Holy Spirit so I look for that presence within the Lords Supper, maybe as an active participant that brings the congregation together in teh Remembrance of Christs sacrifice.

I do agree with Medina that it should be offered when the partaker understands the reason for both the Supper and Christs sacrifice.

mackerski

Again, here's a comment from an atheist who just stumbled on the thread - it's not really a forum where I have a lot to say, but I think I can speak relevantly on the thread.

The problem, as I see it, is the participation in what is supposed to be a religious ceremony, of people for whom the religious aspect is a taxing distraction from the, to them, true purpose of the day. These individuals do not enrich themselves or those around them by their participation, and those participants who are actually religious would be better off on their own, where they could proceed with the dignity they would see fit.

It's easy to solve this problem. Simply remove religion from schools and arrange these rites of passage within the scope of families' own religious observance among their local congregation. This would restore the dignity of true religious observance for the believers and would remove the pressure felt by many unbelieving parents to conform to "normality" so their children don't feel left out.

It would, of course, remove the perceived strength of numbers often claimed for the RC church in Ireland, but no true Christian would be prepared to hide behind such a porkie anyway...

Medina

Hi Brian,
I understand that the ritual of receiving 'communion' comes from the re-enactment of the Last Supper and have posted in the verse in the Bible where Christ says 'Do this in remembrance of me'....By the way this is the only Gospel I could find this in...maybe I missed it in one of the others?

Anyway I suppose thats not really the answer to the question I asked. As in when did 'First Holy Communion' come about as a ceremony and ritual? As a sacrament? There is no mention even of this being practised by the apostles after the death of Jesus, even from Paul there is no mention of any such ceremony...even of any 'mass' type ceremony or 'communion'.

So really when did it all come about?

Luke 22
17After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, "Take this and divide it among you. 18For I tell you I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes."

19And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me."

Tim Robbins

mackerski wrote:

Again, here's a comment from an atheist who just stumbled on the thread - it's not really a forum where I have a lot to say, but I think I can speak relevantly on the thread.

The problem, as I see it, is the participation in what is supposed to be a religious ceremony, of people for whom the religious aspect is a taxing distraction from the, to them, true purpose of the day. These individuals do not enrich themselves or those around them by their participation, and those participants who are actually religious would be better off on their own, where they could proceed with the dignity they would see fit.

It's easy to solve this problem. Simply remove religion from schools and arrange these rites of passage within the scope of families' own religious observance among their local congregation. This would restore the dignity of true religious observance for the believers and would remove the pressure felt by many unbelieving parents to conform to "normality" so their children don't feel left out.

It would, of course, remove the perceived strength of numbers often claimed for the RC church in Ireland, but no true Christian would be prepared to hide behind such a porkie anyway...

If your remark about a stumbling atheist was directed at me, it's a bit silly as you go on to make the exact same point as I did - i.e. making about schools secular.
PDN, great to see I amuse you.

mackerski

Tim Robbins wrote:

If your remark about a stumbling atheist was directed at me, it's a bit silly as you go on to make the exact same point as I did - i.e. making about schools secular.
PDN, great to see I amuse you.

No, I'm an atheist who stumbled on the thread, so I have plenty of time for your sentiments. Amusement doesn't enter into it.

Tim Robbins

mackerski wrote:

No, I'm an atheist who stumbled on the thread, so I have plenty of time for your sentiments. Amusement doesn't enter into it.

Apologies for my misunderstanding.

PDN

Medina wrote:

Hi Brian,
I understand that the ritual of receiving 'communion' comes from the re-enactment of the Last Supper and have posted in the verse in the Bible where Christ says 'Do this in remembrance of me'....By the way this is the only Gospel I could find this in...maybe I missed it in one of the others?

You quoted from Luke 22:19. The account of the Last Supper is also found in Matthew 26 & Mark 14. The exact phrase ("do this in rembrance of me") is also attributed to Jesus in regard to celebrating communion by the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:24.

As in when did 'First Holy Communion' come about as a ceremony and ritual? As a sacrament? There is no mention even of this being practised by the apostles after the death of Jesus, even from Paul there is no mention of any such ceremony...even of any 'mass' type ceremony or 'communion'.

There is, as you say, no command in Scripture for someone's "First Communion" to be a special ceremony or sacrament over and above the normal celebration of communion. However, there are biblical references to the apostles and the early church celebrating a "mass type ceremony or communion". 1 Corinthians 11:17-33 is devoted to this subject, and it is also essential to 1 Corinthians 10:14-21. Most biblical scholars (both Christian & non-Christian) agree that the references to 'breaking bread together' in Acts 2:42 & Acts 20:7 refer to the practice of celebrating communion.

Asiaprod

PDN wrote:

ROTF

Tim Robbins wrote:

PDN, great to see I amuse you.

This is a warning to both of you, if this stupidity flares up again, you are both banned, as will be anyone who contributes to it. This bickering is screwing up interesting threads for others. Take it to PMs or meet in a park at dawn:D

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote:

As I am sure you know, the Catholic church is not entirely scripture driven. Only fringe Christianity movements are, which ironically got their scripture from the Catholic Church.

Tim, I don't think you can really write off 10% of the world's population (the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement) as a "fringe Christianity movement". Also, Lutherans, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Baptists etc. have been around for centuries and, as denominations that claim to be based on scripture rather than tradition, would probably object to being referred to as fringe movements.

By the way, the canon of Scripture as used by biblically-driven churches was agreed long before the Church/State merger under Constantine in the 4th Century (when Catholicism began to develop most of its distinctives). These scriptures were also used by many non-Roman Catholic forms of Christianity such as eastern Orthodox, Coptic, Marionite, Armenian Apostolic, Nestorian etc. (some of these movements, like Catholicism, added extra 'Scriptures' that are not included in our modern Bibles). So, it would not be correct, historically, to say that modern biblically driven churches "got their scripture from the Catholic Church".

Michael G

BrianCalgary wrote:

There are three ways of viewing the host. It becomes His body and blood, in a spiritual transformation (any RC please correct me if I misunderstand) [... but] an outright transformation doesn't seem right as it indicates within the RC right a sacrifice happening over again which makes Christ initial sacrifice as insufficient

Brian, you didn't use your spell-checker. But to answer your post, we Papists don't see it as a sacrifice happening over again – obviously the first one was complete and sufficient for all time – but as a re-enactment in which we are united with or present at the sacrifice and death of Christ.

I am interested to see that I am in agreement, up to a point, with the atheist readers who have posted, in a sensitive and courteous way, in the last day or two. I would like to see only believing Catholics attending these ceremonies and sacraments. But I also have misgivings for the children, based on the fact (if our atheist friends will excuse the word) that a sacrament is the action of divine grace. In other words something is happening to the children, no matter how confused or distracted they are, or how indifferent or uncomprehending their parents are. Which is why, reluctantly, I can't in the end dismiss the whole thing whether it be in Neilstown or Rathgar.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

Tim, I don't think you can really write off 10% of the world's population (the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement) as a "fringe Christianity movement". Also, Lutherans, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Baptists etc. have been around for centuries and, as denominations that claim to be based on scripture rather than tradition, would probably object to being referred to as fringe movements.

I am not writing them off, I am suggesting they are a fringe movement statistically within Christianity.

By the way, the canon of Scripture as used by biblically-driven churches was agreed long before the Church/State merger under Constantine in the 4th Century (when Catholicism began to develop most of its distinctives). These scriptures were also used by many non-Roman Catholic forms of Christianity such as eastern Orthodox, Coptic, Marionite, Armenian Apostolic, Nestorian etc. (some of these movements, like Catholicism, added extra 'Scriptures' that are not included in our modern Bibles). So, it would not be correct, historically, to say that modern biblically driven churches "got their scripture from the Catholic Church".

I am not talking about church / state merger. Historically speaking it was the reformed / Protestant Churches who got Biblical scripture from the Catholics. They didn't just get it themselves. Granted they used the scripture and interpreted differently.

Michael G, I would be in agreement with your last post. I would find it equally annoying if I was in your shoes. When I made my communion and confirmation, the Priest came around to our school and explained in detail what was happening. I believed in God and Catholism at the time, but what made it an extra special day was the sense of universality of it.

Kind regards
Ps
apologies Asiaprod.

Asiaprod

Tim Robbins wrote:

Kind regards
Ps
apologies Asiaprod.

No prolem, you and PDN are smart people with interesting stuff to say, why screw it up for each other:)

BrianCalgary

Michael G wrote:

Brian, you didn't use your spell-checker. But to answer your post, we Papists don't see it as a sacrifice happening over again – obviously the first one was complete and sufficient for all time – but as a re-enactment in which we are united with or present at the sacrifice and death of Christ..

Didn't know there was a spell checker on boards?

Thanks for the response.

And I can agree with that viewpoint although will need to ponder it. I still haven't completely reconciled the presence of Christ or the Holy Spirit within the Eucaharistic celebration.

Michael G wrote:

I am interested to see that I am in agreement, up to a point, with the atheist readers who have posted, in a sensitive and courteous way, in the last day or two. I would like to see only believing Catholics attending these ceremonies and sacraments. But I also have misgivings for the children, based on the fact (if our atheist friends will excuse the word) that a sacrament is the action of divine grace. In other words something is happening to the children, no matter how confused or distracted they are, or how indifferent or uncomprehending their parents are. Which is why, reluctantly, I can't in the end dismiss the whole thing whether it be in Neilstown or Rathgar.

So what is the answer? I am not asking with a tone of sarcasm but with an honest quizzical search for an answer on how we make it a real spiritual event in the lives of not only those receiving their first communion but to th efamilies and witnesses to the event.

Medina

Michael G wrote:

But I also have misgivings for the children, based on the fact that a sacrament is the action of divine grace. In other words something is happening to the children, no matter how confused or distracted they are, or how indifferent or uncomprehending their parents are. Which is why, reluctantly, I can't in the end dismiss the whole thing whether it be in Neilstown or Rathgar.

What is 'the action of divine grace'
What is happening to the children?

Michael G

Medina wrote:

What is 'the action of divine grace'
What is happening to the children?

"The action of divine grace" is a phrase often used in Catholic theology (and perhaps in Lutheran/Anglican theology; certainly in the Orthodox Churches). It means that if the Sacrament is conducted, regardless of the disposition of the celebrant but depending on the disposition of the subject, then it is effective. So in the case of First Holy Communion (to answer your second question also, I hope) if the child believes that he or she is receiving the body of Christ, which I imagine most of them do since that is what they have been taught and they still have the innocent capacity to believe, then it happens in spite of the surrounding babble and indifference of some of their parents and the other adults. And then the grace of God works within them.

Juza1973

Medina wrote:

What is 'the action of divine grace'
What is happening to the children?

They are receiving the body of Christ for the first time, and this is more important than everything who might be happening around them.

Michael G

BrianCalgary wrote:

Didn't know there was a spell checker on boards?.

It's the little tick symbol at the top right-hand corner of the reply/post message box, but you have to download and install the spell-checking facility. I hope my last post answered your other questions.

Medina

Michael G wrote:

"The action of divine grace" is a phrase often used in Catholic theology (and perhaps in Lutheran/Anglican theology; certainly in the Orthodox Churches). It means that if the Sacrament is conducted, regardless of the disposition of the celebrant but depending on the disposition of the subject, then it is effective. So in the case of First Holy Communion (to answer your second question also, I hope) if the child believes that he or she is receiving the body of Christ, which I imagine most of them do since that is what they have been taught and they still have the innocent capacity to believe, then it happens in spite of the surrounding babble and indifference of some of their parents and the other adults. And then the grace of God works within them.

To be frank, your answer seems deliberately vague.

what does 'then it is effective' mean in this context? I get the previous part of that sentence but its this part that trails off into haziness...

Also what does 'then it happens' mean in this context?

(please dont bring us in circles by replying 'the action of divine grace' because if you do you haven't really explained this)


And what does 'the grace of God works within them' mean? I know the answer must be purely theological (you might say spiritual) don't get me wrong...its just you term something 'grace of God' but what is it that refers to within Christian doctrine?

By 'it' are you referring to the physical swallowing of the eucharist?

or are you referring to some spiritual process? If so then I assume this is identifiable or manifests a product or characteristic in some way since it is not explained within the bible, how does one come to recognise it? (For it must be recognised if theologians have mandated it within the doctrine)

also you imply that whatever the 'it' is happens **if** the child believe the wafer is now the body of Christ....

if someone does not believe this but swallows the water how is 'it' affected?

Michael G

Medina wrote:

To be frank, your answer seems deliberately vague./quote]

I certainly didn't mean to be vague; if I seemed to be, it was because I didn't express myself clearly. It might be better if I just stated the Roman Catholic teaching on the sacraments which is as follows (thanks to Wikipedia for this accurate summary).

As understood by the Roman Catholic Church, “the sacraments, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, are efficacious signs of grace perceptible to the senses. Through them divine life is bestowed upon us.” The Church teaches that the effect of a sacrament comes ex opere operato (by the very fact of being administered), regardless of the personal holiness of the minister administering it; a recipient's own lack of proper disposition to receive the grace conveyed can block the effectiveness of the sacrament in that person; the sacraments presuppose faith and, in addition, through their words and ritual elements, nourish, strengthen and give expression to faith (Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 224).

This expresses in general terms, far better than I did, what I was trying to say and I hope it explains my phrase "then it is effective." When I said "the it happens" it would have been better to say "then that is what happens."

Medina wrote:

By 'it' are you referring to ... some spiritual process? If so then I assume this is identifiable or manifests a product or characteristic in some way since it is not explained within the bible ....

also you imply that whatever the 'it' is happens **if** the child believe the wafer is now the body of Christ.... if someone does not believe this but swallows the wafer how is 'it' affected?

We (Papists) would of course hold that it is explained in the Bible, both in the Gospels and by St Paul, interpreted through the Holy Spirit. As for someone who receives the Sacrament without believing that it is the Body of Christ: well, first of all, a full communion logically cannot take place; but if the person does have some Christian faith presumably some grace is conferred. If the person has no faith, then it is just a physical action, the eating of some unleavened bread.