Children and the initiation Sacraments

[Loved_Disciple]

Hello. I have a couple of questions. I have a feeling I know the answer to the first one (being it “yes”), but since I might be wrong, here they are:

• Have Eastern Catholic children always received baptism, confirmation and communion since they’re little?
• What is the earliest they can be confirmed and start taking communion?

Thanks in advance.

 

[CDB1718]

Hello. I have a couple of questions. I have a feeling I know the answer to the first one (being it “yes”), but since I might be wrong, here they are:

• Have Eastern Catholic children always received baptism, confirmation and communion since they’re little?
• What is the earliest they can be confirmed and start taking communion?

Thanks in advance.

No. There have been times when the west’s influence caused some Eastern Catholic Churches to follow the west’s schedule for the mysteries. It is their ancient tradition and always has been, but there are times that tradition hasn’t been followed. This is true today in some Churches and in some parishes.

Technically, it is after the child’s naming and churching, which traditionally happens at 8 days old and after 40 days old. That isn’t an absolute. I believe it could all be done immediately after birth if there was reason.

 

[Byz_Guy]

Infant Communion basically died out in the Eastern Catholic Churches after they sought reunion with Rome in imitation of the Latin theological understanding (“age of reason”) and discipline (“First Communion”) until the 1990s when it began to be restored. As far as I know, there is still not a uniform practice of Infant Communion in any of the Eastern Catholic Churches, except perhaps the Ruthenian Metropolitan Church of Pittsburgh which began the restoration about 1995 or 1996.

 

[Loved_Disciple]

Thanks so much for the answers.

I would assume that “Orthodox” Catholics have always given these Sacraments to the little ones. Maybe you can confirm this?

 

[Loved_Disciple]

Really? I didn’t know that. Do you know what the time window for that was?

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Thanks so much for the answers.

I would assume that “Orthodox” Catholics have always given these Sacraments to the little ones. Maybe you can confirm this?

Again, to emphasize, the full rites of initiation were only recently restored in the Eastern Catholic Churches (sometimes referred to as “Orthodox” Catholic).

I can speak specifically of the practice in the Byzantine-Ruthenian Church.

The Sacraments of Baptism and Chrismation (Confirmation) were administered together for some time, despite strong “Latinization” efforts to the contrary in the early to mid 20th century even in this respect. This was the practice of my generation and the manner in which I and my siblings were received in the Church.

The full Rites of Christian Initiation were restored just in time for the birth and reception into the Church of my first child. She was Baptized and Chrismated, and received First Holy Eucharist. all during the course of a Sunday Divine Liturgy (preferred, but not required - this all can be done separately, as well). While not strictly required, I’m a bit of a traditionalist, and we scheduled this near the 40th day after she was born.

All three of my children, and their Byzantine-Ruthenian Catholic cousins, were received into the Church in this manner.

They are and have been free to receive the Holy Eucharist at every Divine Liturgy, so long as they are properly disposed and able to receive without incident (most parents usually wait until the children are three or so, to avoid any accidents in the reception of the Eucharist).

We do prepare the children for their First Solemn Penance at the same time and age that their Latin Church counterparts are preparing for First Holy Communion (my youngest is preparing this school year). While these children receive the Holy Eucharist first among the congregants and together as a class on a Sunday in May (traditionally), the emphasis is placed on their penitential preparation and the completion of their first acts of contrition, rather than on the reception of the Holy Eucharist, as they have already been graced by participation in that sacrament.

 

[Loved_Disciple]

Again, to emphasize, the full rites of initiation were only recently restored in the Eastern Catholic Churches (sometimes referred to as “Orthodox” Catholic).

I can speak specifically of the practice in the Byzantine-Ruthenian Church.

The Sacraments of Baptism and Chrismation (Confirmation) were administered together for some time, despite strong “Latinization” efforts to the contrary in the early to mid 20th century even in this respect. This was the practice of my generation and the manner in which I and my siblings were received in the Church.

The full Rites of Christian Initiation were restored just in time for the birth and reception into the Church of my first child. She was Baptized and Chrismated, and received First Holy Eucharist. all during the course of a Sunday Divine Liturgy (preferred, but not required - this all can be done separately, as well). While not strictly required, I’m a bit of a traditionalist, and we scheduled this near the 40th day after she was born.

All three of my children, and their Byzantine-Ruthenian Catholic cousins, were received into the Church in this manner.

They are and have been free to receive the Holy Eucharist at every Divine Liturgy, so long as they are properly disposed and able to receive without incident (most parents usually wait until the children are three or so, to avoid any accidents in the reception of the Eucharist).

We do prepare the children for their First Solemn Penance at the same time and age that their Latin Church counterparts are preparing for First Holy Communion (my youngest is preparing this school year). While these children receive the Holy Eucharist first among the congregants and together as a class on a Sunday in May (traditionally), the emphasis is placed on their penitential preparation and the completion of their first acts of contrition, rather than on the reception of the Holy Eucharist, as they have already been graced by participation in that sacrament.

Thanks for all the details. The Church definitely is flexible in this manner while still leaning more towards the Western’s practice of evangelizing prior to giving the post-baptismal Sacraments.

I actually have been to several Eastern DL’s (at least two rites), and just love it. Yet there’s much to learn from them too.

But I actually meant our schismatic “Orthodox” brethren. I was wondering if they ever stopped giving these Sacraments to the little ones.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

But I actually meant our [sic] schismatic “Orthodox” brethren. I was wondering if they ever stopped giving these Sacraments to the little ones.

I believe that our faithful Orthodox brothers and sisters have unbroken traditions in this respect. Hopefully, at least one or two will pick up on this thread and post accordingly.

 

[Suslar]

Can’t cite a source at the moment, but it was once the custom to give unconsumed consecrated Hosts that were left over after Mass to innocent young children because they were considered “perfect vessels.”

 

[Loved_Disciple]

I believe that our faithful Orthodox brothers and sisters have unbroken traditions in this respect. Hopefully, at least one or two will pick up on this thread and post accordingly.

Okay. And just as a footnote, I meant that in a non-confrontational sense. The Great Schism can’t be denied, yet this is nothing personal with anyone in particular.

I agree that they’re “the other lung” with which the Church breathes.

 

[GelasianumVetus]

Really? I didn’t know that. Do you know what the time window for that was?

There are a variety of different reasons why infant communion and confirmation died out. To give very complex reasons fairly simply:

The main reason that infant communion died out in the West is that communion was given to infants under the form of wine. When the chalice began to be withheld from the laity, infant communion became an unintended casualty. This occurred sometime after the turn of the second millennium, and was definitely widespread by the 12th-13th century.

Confirmation became separated from baptism in the West because of the historical peculiarity that the Roman rite of baptism had two anointings after baptism, one by the priest, the second by the bishop. What came to be understood as confirmation was the anointing by the bishop. As dioceses grew larger, and the bishop could not be there for every baptism, the anointing began to be delayed, until the bishop could get around to it.

Later Western theologians who talk about the ‘fittingness’ of confirmation and communion being delayed until whatever age were simply justifying practice as they knew it at their time.

 

[Loved_Disciple]

I’d also assume that when children are given the Holy Communion they receive it in both species.

Thanks again, everyone.

P.S. I’m trying to help a faith brother prepare for a debate against a “Light of the World Church” pastor over in their version of the Holy See, in Guadalajara, Mexico. That’s why I am asking some of these questions.

 

[Suslar]

I’d also assume that when children are given the Holy Communion they receive it in both species.
.

Currently, young children in the Roman Catholic rite are permitted to receive under both species in any US diocese that still allows the laity in general to receive both. Most of the rest of the world does not offer both species to the laity.

 

[Byz_Guy]

Some of the history of Infant Communion in East and West can be read here:

orthocath.wordpress.com/2010/01/09/infants-sharing-in-the-lords-table/

 

[ConstantineTG]

I was confirmed days after I was baptized, and it was in a church so it wasn’t like I was in danger of death or anything. Not so long ago, at least confirmation was given to infants in the RC Church, at least where I grew up (Philippines).

 

[ConstantineTG]

I’d also assume that when children are given the Holy Communion they receive it in both species.

Thanks again, everyone.

P.S. I’m trying to help a faith brother prepare for a debate against a “Light of the World Church” pastor over in their version of the Holy See, in Guadalajara, Mexico. That’s why I am asking some of these questions.

Infants are given the Precious Blood only until such a time they can receive solids. My son started receiving at 13 months old and initially he was given only the Precious Blood. But not long after since he was comfortable at eating different kinds of food, he started receiving both kinds. I haven’t had a problem with him receiving (like danger of him spitting it out) but if he’s been sick and was throwing up a day or two before Sunday, I won’t have him receive even if he already looks completely recovered.

 

[Vsevolod]

I’d also assume that when children are given the Holy Communion they receive it in both species.

There are technicalities about that.

Very young infants can’t possibly take anything solid, that’s why they are only given the Blood. For that reason, they are not partaking in the Communion during the Lent on the weekdays (when Liturgy of Presanctified Gifts – composed by St. Gregory of the two epistles, Pope of Rome, by the way – is celebrated, and receiving just in one species is not available.)

 

[Diak]

Generally the infant receives the Precious Blood and then only a few drops to conclude the Chrismation. In the UGCC it is by patriarchal and episcopal decrees (as well as the instruction from Rome) that all three Sacraments of Initiation be conferred since at least the 1990s. In the US all of the main Greek Catholic Churches (Ukrainian, Melkite, Romanian, “Ruthenian”) had great variation in this before the 1990s; there were parishes that preserved all three Mysteries of Initiation (some continuing since the beginning of the parish) and those that separated Communion until later in imitation of the Latin practice of “First Communion”.

As BythCathCantor correctly stated, the restoration of the triple united Sacraments of Initiation is still relatively recent and in some places is ongoing. In the town I lived at the time when my now twenty-something old son was an infant the American “Ruthenian” priest formed in an American Latin seminary would not communicate him as an infant, but the Ukrainian priest who was used to this practice in his village church would do so without hesitation. Those sorts of things are largely relegated to the past. There is still the “First Solemn Communion” that lingers in some Greek Catholic Churches (I have seen this in all four that I mentioned above) but that is really just First Confession with the kids dressing up like the old First Communion, having received Communion as part of their Mysteries of Initiation.

 

[babochka]

The Sacraments of Baptism and Chrismation (Confirmation) were administered together for some time, despite strong “Latinization” efforts to the contrary in the early to mid 20th century even in this respect. This was the practice of my generation and the manner in which I and my siblings were received in the Church.

The full Rites of Christian Initiation were restored just in time for the birth and reception into the Church of my first child. She was Baptized and Chrismated, and received First Holy Eucharist. all during the course of a Sunday Divine Liturgy (preferred, but not required - this all can be done separately, as well). While not strictly required, I’m a bit of a traditionalist, and we scheduled this near the 40th day after she was born.

They are and have been free to receive the Holy Eucharist at every Divine Liturgy, so long as they are properly disposed and able to receive without incident (most parents usually wait until the children are three or so, to avoid any accidents in the reception of the Eucharist).

.

It is always interesting to me when I hear about the practice of other parishes in this regard. I was born in 1969, and grew up in a Ruthenian church in the 1970’s. Infant Communion was the norm at this time in our parish, and I had no idea that it was any other way in other parishes. Where I live, Byzantine Churches are few and far between, so I never had any opportunity to attend another Byzantine church. I attended Catholic (Latin Rite) grade school, and received communion at school Masses, even in 1st grade. (This did not please dear Sister Paul, who never was quite convinced that I was really Catholic, but the priest assured her that it was acceptable. )

In our parish, all the parents take their young children to Communion. Why would a parent wait until they were 3 years old or so, if they initially received at Baptism?

 

[babochka]

In the town I lived at the time when my now twenty-something old son was an infant the American “Ruthenian” priest formed in an American Latin seminary would not communicate him as an infant, but the Ukrainian priest who was used to this practice in his village church would do so without hesitation. Those sorts of things are largely relegated to the past.

This process certainly has been haphazard. Our parish was founded in the late 60s and we have always had infant communion (and American priests). We currently have a Slovak priest. When he first arrived (2 years ago), his children had not yet received Communion, because the practice was just beginning to be restored in his area. In some areas, they would give the children Communion at Baptism, but they would not receive it again until the “age of reason” . In other areas, Communion wasn’t given to infants/young children at all. I guess we just have to be patient and realize that change takes time.