My liberal church finally went over the edge.

[Aeternitus]

The entire text you quoted refers to children, not babies and toddlers which is the issue here. 

I believe in the first round of your rant, a month or so ago you were referring to all children, not just babies and toddlers.  Well at least you are coming around; a bit.  It's very nice of you to allow older children into your Church.   

You are way off mark to think that anything regarding this came out of VII.  That is your imagination working overtime.

Nasty.

And how does this putdown contribute to the debate?

Because it highlights that the poster who made the uncalled for comment Awkward was responding to (#153) was not contributing to the debate themselves, but making an unjustified attack.   It was nasty.  Awkward clarified way back in #70 that they were not referring to children, but only babies or toddlers.  That's about 90 posts ago. Perhaps one could not be bothered to read them all?  That's fine, and a perfect reason to refrain from making any comment at all. 

I find Awkward's and Munda's (in particular) posts worthy of thought and I haven't yet come to any conclusion.  Posts like #153 don't help.

In fact I have read this entire thread from the beginning, as well as this entire thread:  https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=22198.msg477134#msg477134

The fact remains that this thread was hijacked to rehash what has been beaten to the ground in a previous thread.  Prior to post #153 I purposely refrained from commenting as I had commented fully, respectfully, I might add, in the previous thread.

In both threads awkwardcustomer has had some pretty snarky replies to those who respectfully disagree with him.  I guess I'm just tired of him dishing it out and then feigning feeling ganged up upon when anyone replies in kind.

The Church has never made a ruling calling for infants and toddlers NOT to attend Mass.  She has, however, made it a law of the Church to attend Mass on Sundays and holy days.

Again, I see no need to imply that  young Catholic parents are somehow doing something wrong when they try to do both their duties of state and obey the Laws of the Church.

Modified because of quotation error

I haven't yet read the earlier thread and my comments only relate to this one.  I will read the other thread in due course, but my time is limited.  Until then, my comments on #153 still stand.  It was nasty and didn't contribute at all to the debate.   Awkward made it quite clear 80 or 90 posts ago, that if anyone thought her problem was with children attending Mass then those people were mistaken –babies and toddlers only.     After that clarification, whether you think  #153 was warranted due to the previous thread, and therefore appropriate to "reply in kind", as you say, well, that's your call.  I don't.   

[orate]

I haven't yet read the earlier thread and my comments only relate to this one.  I will read the other thread in due course, but my time is limited.  Until then, my comments on #153 still stand.  It was nasty and didn't contribute at all to the debate.   Awkward made it quite clear 80 or 90 posts ago, that if anyone thought her problem was with children attending Mass then those people were mistaken –babies and toddlers only.     After that clarification, whether you think  #153 was warranted due to the previous thread, and therefore appropriate to "reply in kind", as you say, well, that's your call.  I don't.

So be it.  Aeternitus, my bone of contention is not with you or most of the other posters on this forum.  I'm sorry if I may have offended you.

Opinions, as they say, are like another part of the human anatomy, everyone has one.  The primary value of this forum is the discussion of true Catholic teaching, not in the expression of one's individual opinion--this includes my own.

edited for spelling and to add

I stand by my statement: "The Church has never made a ruling calling for infants and toddlers NOT to attend Mass.  She has, however, made it a law of the Church to attend Mass on Sundays and holy days."  Thus, I find it uncharitable to encourage Catholic parents to forego their duty to attend Mass just because they must bring an infant or toddler or both, in order to fulfill their duty.

[Aeternitus]

I haven't yet read the earlier thread and my comments only relate to this one.  I will read the other thread in due course, but my time is limited.  Until then, my comments on #153 still stand.  It was nasty and didn't contribute at all to the debate.   Awkward made it quite clear 80 or 90 posts ago, that if anyone thought her problem was with children attending Mass then those people were mistaken –babies and toddlers only.     After that clarification, whether you think  #153 was warranted due to the previous thread, and therefore appropriate to "reply in kind", as you say, well, that's your call.  I don't.

So be it.  Aeternitus, my bone of contention is not with you or most of the other posters on this forum.  I'm sorry if I may have offended you.

Opinions, as they say, are like another part of the human anatomy, everyone has one.  The primary value of this forum is the discussion of true Catholic teaching, not in the expression of one's individual opinion--this includes my own.

edited for spelling

You haven't offended me.  And if you had, this post of your would have unoffended me immediately    Post # 153 (which was not yours) offended my sense of justice, that's all.  I think this is an interesting topic and I actually don't know the answer.  I have witnessed babes and tots attend Mass and not make a sound.  Or if they did their parents would have them out of the door before the cry erupted.  That is how diligent they were, together with horrified at the thought of disrupting Mass.  So I know it can be done and it seems that Munda may have achieved similar.   But I have also witnessed slack parents let young ones babble, look around, play on the pews, cry etc, which irks me as much as it does Awkward.  Not because I have an issue with noise, but because I find it irreverent and selfish.  I have a definite sympathy for parents given the crisis in which we live and the lack of family support, such as competent grandparents, siblings and extended family who can assist, together with the options of more than one Mass.  I also have a sympathy for Awkward who seems to take the following words of St John Chrysostum to heart and I can find no fault in that:

Nothing so becomes a Church as silence and good order. Noise belongs to theaters, and baths, and public processions, and market-places: but where doctrines, and such doctrines, are the subject of teaching, there should be stillness, and quiet, and calm reflection, and a haven of much repose...

Say, during the celebration of the Mysteries, is there any noise? any disturbance? when we are baptizing (baptizwmeqa), when we are doing all the other acts? Is not all Nature decked (as it were) with stillness and silence? Over all the face of heaven is scattered this charm (of repose) (St John Chrysostom Homily XXX Acts of the Apostles)

 

[orate]

I haven't yet read the earlier thread and my comments only relate to this one.  I will read the other thread in due course, but my time is limited.  Until then, my comments on #153 still stand.  It was nasty and didn't contribute at all to the debate.   Awkward made it quite clear 80 or 90 posts ago, that if anyone thought her problem was with children attending Mass then those people were mistaken –babies and toddlers only.     After that clarification, whether you think  #153 was warranted due to the previous thread, and therefore appropriate to "reply in kind", as you say, well, that's your call.  I don't.

So be it.  Aeternitus, my bone of contention is not with you or most of the other posters on this forum.  I'm sorry if I may have offended you.

Opinions, as they say, are like another part of the human anatomy, everyone has one.  The primary value of this forum is the discussion of true Catholic teaching, not in the expression of one's individual opinion--this includes my own.

edited for spelling

You haven't offended me.  And if you had, this post of your would have unoffended me immediately    Post # 153 (which was not yours) offended my sense of justice, that's all.  I think this is an interesting topic and I actually don't know the answer.  I have witnessed babes and tots attend Mass and not make a sound.  Or if they did their parents would have them out of the door before the cry erupted.  That is how diligent they were, together with horrified at the thought of disrupting Mass.  So I know it can be done and it seems that Munda may have achieved similar.   But I have also witnessed slack parents let young ones babble, look around, play on the pews, cry etc, which irks me as much as it does Awkward.  Not because I have an issue with noise, but because I find it irreverent and selfish.  I have a definite sympathy for parents given the crisis in which we live and the lack of family support, such as competent grandparents, siblings and extended family who can assist, together with the options of more than one Mass.  I also have a sympathy for Awkward who seems to take the following words of St John Chrysostum to heart and I can find no fault in that:

Nothing so becomes a Church as silence and good order. Noise belongs to theaters, and baths, and public processions, and market-places: but where doctrines, and such doctrines, are the subject of teaching, there should be stillness, and quiet, and calm reflection, and a haven of much repose...

Say, during the celebration of the Mysteries, is there any noise? any disturbance? when we are baptizing (baptizwmeqa), when we are doing all the other acts? Is not all Nature decked (as it were) with stillness and silence? Over all the face of heaven is scattered this charm (of repose) (St John Chrysostom Homily XXX Acts of the Apostles)

Agreed.  I think all of us agree that unruly, misbehaving children--and adults, I might add-- are a disruption to the sacredness of Holy Mass.  Beseeching parents to tend to their children during Mass and train them in proper behavior at Mass--as is their duty-- is quite appropriate. But asking parents to stay home from Mass, especially on a Sunday, just because their infant or toddler, is being an infant or toddler, is a far cry from that, and is not only inappropriate, but lacks charity as well.

[MundaCorMeum]

I'll be honest....St. John's quote confuses me.  He likens the stillness and silence at Mass to nature.  Nature is not still and silent, though.  It's robust and full of life and sounds.  Birds constantly flittering around, signing their songs, feathering their nests, feeding their babies; a symphony of thousands of insects and frogs in the evening, chirping and croaking.  The list could go on and on. Maybe I'm just not clear on what the virtue of silence looks like in practice?  Is silence the complete and utter lack of sound altogether; or is it just the absence of noise.  There is a difference there.  I tend to think it is more a lack of noise and disorder.  Because while nature is not silent, it is not exactly noisy and it's definitely not disorderly.  Despite it's robustness of sounds and movements, it does foster a sense of inner peace, quiet, and stillness.  Which tells me some tolerance of sound and movement in Mass is to ve allowed

[Miriam_M]

Just a point of information, nothing else:

The poster awkward customer is a she.

[The Curt Jester]

Just a point of information, nothing else:

The poster awkward customer is a she.

Well, that's rather awkward!

[Flick]

Just a point of information, nothing else:

The poster awkward customer is a she.

Knock my socks off; all this time I was sure the poster was a curmudgeon old man!  So much for the nurturing attribute of the female gender.

[bigbadtrad]

I had to look it up, but 'The Didascalia' which Gardener quoted from dates from the 3rd century. 

Wait wait wait... didn't you say we wouldn't like tradition or only the ones you disagreed with? Oh that's right, that was you.

Funny how things work when people don't like tradition. You think because someone regionally did something in history that's tradition, which is false.

To answer your statement one would lose their kids to social services if you gave your kids to a wet-nurse for years. That's not non-sense, but you didn't understand me so no big deal. "Where is your daughter?" "I gave her to a wet-nurse, don't worry she'll be back in a few years." Yeah that wouldn't raise any flags.

Also, the entire East & West had children receiving Holy Communion for centuries. I don't need a doctor of a Church for Church teaching. Like I said before, your citation was a regional custom, nothing more or less, what I know was a teaching of the Church, not a snippet of history like yours.

I just left an Eastern rite liturgy and all the children received. They even made some noise. No one complained and they all smiled at the children.

[diaduit]

Toddlers are capable of sitting and standing.  It also mentions that young women with children are to stand apart.  That could imply that women are supposed to be holding said children, because they are too young to be set down.

I had to look it up, but 'The Didascalia' which Gardener quoted from dates from the 3rd century.  The practice in the early Church was for the laity to stand at Mass.  There would have been no chairs or pews in the nave.  The early Christians stood before the altar, and those too weak or infirm sat on benches in the side aisles.  The quote needs to be read with this in mind.

For example, you referred to the following.....

And let the young women who are married and have children stand apart, and the aged women and widows sit apart.

The aged women and widows sit.  The young women who are married and have children stand apart.  I find it difficult to imagine women with babies and toddlers being expected to stand, which suggests that the children being referred to had reached the age of reason.

I'm not sure what standing 'apart' means, unless it means standing in the side aisles and not the nave.  At any rate, the example from the Didascalia refers to an entirely different church layout than what is the norm today, a church layout that was also the norm for the entire Middle Ages and only disappeared after the Reformation.

The Didascalia, or the Catholic Teaching of the Twelve Apostles and Holy Disciples of Our Saviour, is a Church Order, composed, according to recent investigations, in the first part, perhaps even the first decades, of the third century, for a community of Christian converts from paganism in the northern part of Syria. The work is modelled on the Didache (cf. vol. I, pp. 29-39) and forms the main source of the first six books of the Apostolic Constitutions.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/didascalia.html

I have stood while breast feeding my baby in the freezing cold vestibule (approx. 8ft x 8ft with no seats available) , we don't have a cry room for some length of time especially if the baby was fussy.  This would be a regular occurrence in the first year of a babies life, I only have 4 children compared to some of our other mothers of 8 or 10 who have been doing it for years.

[awkwardcustomer]

Knock my socks off; all this time I was sure the poster was a curmudgeon old man!  So much for the nurturing attribute of the female gender.

Perhaps St John Chrysostom was a "curmudgeon old man".

After all, he did say the following, as Aeternitus points out above.

Nothing so becomes a Church as silence and good order. Noise belongs to theaters, and baths, and public processions, and market-places: but where doctrines, and such doctrines, are the subject of teaching, there should be stillness, and quiet, and calm reflection, and a haven of much repose...

I've yet to learn of a Saint who extolled the virtue of noise and disturbance at Mass.

[orate]

Knock my socks off; all this time I was sure the poster was a curmudgeon old man!  So much for the nurturing attribute of the female gender.

Perhaps St John Chrysostom was a "curmudgeon old man".

After all, he did say the following, as Aeternitus points out above.

Nothing so becomes a Church as silence and good order. Noise belongs to theaters, and baths, and public processions, and market-places: but where doctrines, and such doctrines, are the subject of teaching, there should be stillness, and quiet, and calm reflection, and a haven of much repose...

I've yet to learn of a Saint who extolled the virtue of noise and disturbance at Mass.

No one here extols the "virtue of noise and disturbance at Mass."  As Munda points out in post #169, the orderly sounds of nature are not the equivalent of noise.  The natural happy sounds of infants and toddlers are not necessarily noise.  Orderly silence is not necessarily the total absence of sound.

I've yet to learn of a Saint who extolled the virtue of an adult disobeying the Laws of the Church---especially by staying home from Mass on Sundays and Holy Days, just because his infant or toddler may make a sound or two, consistent with the child's nature.

This is particularly true if the parent makes every effort to keep the sound level to a minimum.

[bigbadtrad]

awkwardcustomer since this is about tradition I'll make it easier for you. You wanted quotes from a doctor and tradition:

Fr. Robert Taft, Archimandrite of the Russian Greek Catholic Church:

"The practice [of communing infants] began to be called into question in the 12th century not because of any argument about the need to have attained the "age of reason" (aetus discretionis) to communicate. Rather, the fear of profanation of the Host if the child could not swallow it led to giving the Precious Blood only. And then the forbidding of the chalice to the laity in the West led automatically to the disappearance of infant Communion, too. This was not the result of any pastoral or theological reasoning. When the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) ordered yearly confession and Communion for those who have reached the "age of reason" (annos discretionis), it was not affirming this age as a requirement for reception of the Eucharist.

"Nevertheless, the notion eventually took hold that Communion could not be received until the age of reason, even though infant Communion in the Latin rite continued in some parts of the West until the 16th century. Though the Fathers of Trent (Session XXI,4) denied the necessity of infant Communion, they refused to agree with those who said it was useless and inefficacious — realizing undoubtedly that the exact same arguments used against infant Communion could also be used against infant baptism, because for over ten centuries in the West, the same theology was used to justify both! For the Byzantine rite, on December 23, 1534, Paul III explicitly confirmed the Italo-Albanian custom of administering Communion to infants....

"So the plain facts of history show that for 1200 years the universal practice of the entire Church of East and West was to communicate infants. Hence, to advance doctrinal arguments against infant Communion is to assert that the sacramental teaching and practice of the Roman Church was in error for 1200 years. Infant Communion was not only permitted in the Roman Church, at one time the supreme magisterium taught that it was necessary for salvation. In the Latin Church the practice was not suppressed by any doctrinal or pastoral decision, but simply died out. Only later, in the 13th century, was the 'age of reason' theory advanced to support the innovation of baptizing infants without also giving them Communion. So the "age of reason" requirement for Communion is a medieval Western pastoral innovation, not a doctrinal argument. And the true ancient tradition of the whole Catholic Church is to give Communion to infants. Present Latin usage is a medieval innovation."

St. Augustine  Sermon 174, 7

"Those who say that infancy has nothing in it for Jesus to save, are denying that Christ is Jesus for all believing infants. Those, I repeat, who say that infancy has nothing in it for Jesus to save, are saying nothing else than that for believing infants, infants that is who have been baptized in Christ, Christ the Lord is not Jesus. After all, what is Jesus? Jesus means Savior. Jesus is the Savior. Those whom he doesn't save, having nothing to save in them, well for them he isn't Jesus. Well now, if you can tolerate the idea that Christ is not Jesus for some persons who have been baptized, then I'm not sure your faith can be recognized as according with the sound rule. Yes, they're infants, but they are his members. They're infants, but they receive his sacraments. They are infants, but they share in his table, in order to have life in themselves."

Tell me what saint says children shouldn't attend Mass. You asked for doctors, I gave you tradition + a doctor/father. Your quote from St. John (who gave children Holy Communion) shows you don't understand what you're quoting. He wasn't separating silence from children at Mass. In fact he was a promoter of having them there and giving them Communion.

[coffeeandcigarette]

awkwardcustomer since this is about tradition I'll make it easier for you. You wanted quotes from a doctor and tradition:

Fr. Robert Taft, Archimandrite of the Russian Greek Catholic Church:

"The practice [of communing infants] began to be called into question in the 12th century not because of any argument about the need to have attained the "age of reason" (aetus discretionis) to communicate. Rather, the fear of profanation of the Host if the child could not swallow it led to giving the Precious Blood only. And then the forbidding of the chalice to the laity in the West led automatically to the disappearance of infant Communion, too. This was not the result of any pastoral or theological reasoning. When the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) ordered yearly confession and Communion for those who have reached the "age of reason" (annos discretionis), it was not affirming this age as a requirement for reception of the Eucharist.

"Nevertheless, the notion eventually took hold that Communion could not be received until the age of reason, even though infant Communion in the Latin rite continued in some parts of the West until the 16th century. Though the Fathers of Trent (Session XXI,4) denied the necessity of infant Communion, they refused to agree with those who said it was useless and inefficacious — realizing undoubtedly that the exact same arguments used against infant Communion could also be used against infant baptism, because for over ten centuries in the West, the same theology was used to justify both! For the Byzantine rite, on December 23, 1534, Paul III explicitly confirmed the Italo-Albanian custom of administering Communion to infants....

"So the plain facts of history show that for 1200 years the universal practice of the entire Church of East and West was to communicate infants. Hence, to advance doctrinal arguments against infant Communion is to assert that the sacramental teaching and practice of the Roman Church was in error for 1200 years. Infant Communion was not only permitted in the Roman Church, at one time the supreme magisterium taught that it was necessary for salvation. In the Latin Church the practice was not suppressed by any doctrinal or pastoral decision, but simply died out. Only later, in the 13th century, was the 'age of reason' theory advanced to support the innovation of baptizing infants without also giving them Communion. So the "age of reason" requirement for Communion is a medieval Western pastoral innovation, not a doctrinal argument. And the true ancient tradition of the whole Catholic Church is to give Communion to infants. Present Latin usage is a medieval innovation."

St. Augustine  Sermon 174, 7

"Those who say that infancy has nothing in it for Jesus to save, are denying that Christ is Jesus for all believing infants. Those, I repeat, who say that infancy has nothing in it for Jesus to save, are saying nothing else than that for believing infants, infants that is who have been baptized in Christ, Christ the Lord is not Jesus. After all, what is Jesus? Jesus means Savior. Jesus is the Savior. Those whom he doesn't save, having nothing to save in them, well for them he isn't Jesus. Well now, if you can tolerate the idea that Christ is not Jesus for some persons who have been baptized, then I'm not sure your faith can be recognized as according with the sound rule. Yes, they're infants, but they are his members. They're infants, but they receive his sacraments. They are infants, but they share in his table, in order to have life in themselves."

Tell me what saint says children shouldn't attend Mass. You asked for doctors, I gave you tradition + a doctor/father. Your quote from St. John (who gave children Holy Communion) shows you don't understand what you're quoting. He wasn't separating silence from children at Mass. In fact he was a promoter of having them there and giving them Communion.

Can I just say...MIC DROP

[awkwardcustomer]

awkwardcustomer since this is about tradition I'll make it easier for you. You wanted quotes from a doctor and tradition:

Fr. Robert Taft, Archimandrite of the Russian Greek Catholic Church:

"The practice [of communing infants] began to be called into question in the 12th century not because of any argument about the need to have attained the "age of reason" (aetus discretionis) to communicate. Rather, the fear of profanation of the Host if the child could not swallow it led to giving the Precious Blood only. And then the forbidding of the chalice to the laity in the West led automatically to the disappearance of infant Communion, too. This was not the result of any pastoral or theological reasoning. When the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) ordered yearly confession and Communion for those who have reached the "age of reason" (annos discretionis), it was not affirming this age as a requirement for reception of the Eucharist.

"Nevertheless, the notion eventually took hold that Communion could not be received until the age of reason, even though infant Communion in the Latin rite continued in some parts of the West until the 16th century. Though the Fathers of Trent (Session XXI,4) denied the necessity of infant Communion, they refused to agree with those who said it was useless and inefficacious — realizing undoubtedly that the exact same arguments used against infant Communion could also be used against infant baptism, because for over ten centuries in the West, the same theology was used to justify both! For the Byzantine rite, on December 23, 1534, Paul III explicitly confirmed the Italo-Albanian custom of administering Communion to infants....

"So the plain facts of history show that for 1200 years the universal practice of the entire Church of East and West was to communicate infants. Hence, to advance doctrinal arguments against infant Communion is to assert that the sacramental teaching and practice of the Roman Church was in error for 1200 years. Infant Communion was not only permitted in the Roman Church, at one time the supreme magisterium taught that it was necessary for salvation. In the Latin Church the practice was not suppressed by any doctrinal or pastoral decision, but simply died out. Only later, in the 13th century, was the 'age of reason' theory advanced to support the innovation of baptizing infants without also giving them Communion. So the "age of reason" requirement for Communion is a medieval Western pastoral innovation, not a doctrinal argument. And the true ancient tradition of the whole Catholic Church is to give Communion to infants. Present Latin usage is a medieval innovation."

Fr. Robert Taft, Archimandrite of the Russian Greek Catholic Church, claims that the "age of reason" requirement is a "medieval innovation", as if that somehow renders it disposable.  What greater insult can there be to a liturgical practice than to dismiss it as a 'medieval innovation'?

But it's a development that has lasted and still exists today, is it not?  And other than that, I'm not sure what relevance this quote has, other than to illustrate that since the 12the century, the Tradition of the Church has been to give Communion to children who have reached the age of reason.

As things stand, the Church does not require anyone below the age of reason to be at Mass.

St. Augustine  Sermon 174, 7

"Those who say that infancy has nothing in it for Jesus to save, are denying that Christ is Jesus for all believing infants. Those, I repeat, who say that infancy has nothing in it for Jesus to save, are saying nothing else than that for believing infants, infants that is who have been baptized in Christ, Christ the Lord is not Jesus. After all, what is Jesus? Jesus means Savior. Jesus is the Savior. Those whom he doesn't save, having nothing to save in them, well for them he isn't Jesus. Well now, if you can tolerate the idea that Christ is not Jesus for some persons who have been baptized, then I'm not sure your faith can be recognized as according with the sound rule. Yes, they're infants, but they are his members. They're infants, but they receive his sacraments. They are infants, but they share in his table, in order to have life in themselves."

How old are infants? 

And were they sitting 'apart' as in the passage from 'The Didiscalia'  quoted by Gardener, whatever sitting 'apart' meant in a church without pews.  Churches without pews were the ancient tradition of the Church and ended in the West after the Reformation when Protestant pews were introduced into Catholic Churches.

I'm all for a return to that tradition, especially as the presence of babies and toddlers at the Russian Orthodox Mass I attended in a pewless church seemed far less obtrusive for some reason.

Tell me what saint says children shouldn't attend Mass. You asked for doctors, I gave you tradition + a doctor/father. Your quote from St. John (who gave children Holy Communion) shows you don't understand what you're quoting. He wasn't separating silence from children at Mass. In fact he was a promoter of having them there and giving them Communion

It becomes very tedious having to explain it for the umpteenth time.  Even Aeternitus has explained it a couple of times.