Children and the initiation Sacraments

[ByzCathCantor]

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.

I am very, very surprised that you had full rites of initiation in that era. It was actually forbidden to do so in the “Greek Catholic” parishes in America in those days, and it was a real struggle to retain the practice of baptism with chrismation (confirmation).

BTW - I was received into the Church in January 1966 in the Cathedral Church (St. Michael the Archangel in Passaic, NJ). I received the sacraments of Baptism and Chrismation only, as was the norm at the time. My sister received the same sacraments 17 months later. It is logical that the practice at the Eparchial Cathedral parish would reflect the prescibed and permitted norms of the day.

I recall vividly that the full Rites of Christian Initiation were restored in the Eparchy of Passaic effective Palm Sunday 1997. My daughter was born two months later and was the first infant to be fully initiated under the restored Rites in our parish. We also happened to be parishioners of the Cathedral Church at the time.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The First Solemn Communion is preceded by a fast from Communion for the children for 1 year, while they are instructed about the Eucharist.

At least that is the practice in my Eparchy (which I found out just this past Sunday).

 

[Hesychios]

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).

I did read an account of Latin Catholics in Hungary getting confirmed as infants, I don’t know how widespread that practice is, but it seems to hearken back to an earlier age.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

The First Solemn Communion is preceded by a fast from Communion for the children for 1 year, while they are instructed about the Eucharist.

At least that is the practice in my Eparchy (which I found out just this past Sunday).

Interesting! Are they preparing for their First Penance during that time?

 

[ConstantineTG]

I did read an account of Latin Catholics in Hungary getting confirmed as infants, I don’t know how widespread that practice is, but it seems to hearken back to an earlier age.

Because confirmation is reserved to the bishop, kids were confirmed at whatever age they are in when the bishop comes for a visit to the parish. Because the Philippines is predominantly Catholic, a bishop literally has over a hundred parishes under him, so even if he visits one per week he won’t get to all of them in a year. So when the bishop is in town, everyone who is not confirmed gets confirmed regardless of age.

Of course my parents made the effort to bring me to the Cathedral. Interesting though I looked at my certificates and they registered that it happened on the same day. But as I recall from older certificates, they weren’t. I think they were about a week or two apart. They were held in different parishes.

Interesting! Are they preparing for their First Penance during that time?

Uh I should know I am handling that class, but I don’t. So far we’re teaching about the Eucharist.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

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?

I shared that some parents wait - this is strictly voluntary and judgmental on their part. Some fear that their child may drop or spit out the Eucharist if they were to receive. Surely you could understand that worry. Some of the anxiety must relate to the fact that the parents themselves did not receive First Communion as infants, so this is still a bit strange to them.

Some parents do take younger children to receive, and the priest would never refuse so long as he knew these children had, in fact, been fully initiated via the restored Rites.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Uh I should know I am handling that class, but I don’t. So far we’re teaching about the Eucharist.

No worries! I was just curious, as that is our parish practice. We prepare them for First Penance at the same time and age that their Latin Catholic friends would be preparing for their traditional First Holy Communion. We do not ask them to abstain from receiving the Eucharist during their preparation. They make their First Penance on Saturday, and we celebrate with them in the parish hall immediately afterward to emphasize that Sacramental experience, although they do receive the Eucharist together the following day during Divine Liturgy (of course, girls in white dresses and boys in blue suits).

 

[babochka]

I shared that some parents wait - this is strictly voluntary and judgmental on their part. Some fear that their child may drop or spit out the Eucharist if they were to receive. Surely you could understand that worry. Some of the anxiety must relate to the fact that the parents themselves did not receive First Communion as infants, so this is still a bit strange to them.

Honestly, I would worry more that a child of 3 or so would be more likely than an infant to to reject or spit out the Eucharist, particularly if he were unaccustomed to the strong taste and texture. I guess I understnd, though. Thankfully, this should not take more than a single generation to sort itself out, and these children will grow up thinking that this is just the way it has always been done.

 

[babochka]

I am very, very surprised that you had full rites of initiation in that era. It was actually forbidden to do so in the “Greek Catholic” parishes in America in those days, and it was a real struggle to retain the practice of baptism with chrismation (confirmation).

BTW - I was received into the Church in January 1966 in the Cathedral Church (St. Michael the Archangel in Passaic, NJ). I received the sacraments of Baptism and Chrismation only, as was the norm at the time. My sister received the same sacraments 17 months later. It is logical that the practice at the Eparchial Cathedral parish would reflect the prescibed and permitted norms of the day.

I recall vividly that the full Rites of Christian Initiation were restored in the Eparchy of Passaic effective Palm Sunday 1997. My daughter was born two months later and was the first infant to be fully initiated under the restored Rites in our parish. We also happened to be parishioners of the Cathedral Church at the time.

We were way out west (California) in what was to become the Eparchy of Van Nuys. I have heard that some of the more “orthodox” leaning priests were exiled out here in those days, so maybe that had something to do with it. I do know that our priest at the time did it, as did every subsequent priest assigned to the parish, to the present day. Even in 1969, we were part of Parma, not Passaic, so that might somewhat explain the difference.

When you say that the full rites of initiation were restored effective Palm Sunday 1997, does that mean that they became mandated by the Bishop at that time? Were they allowed and practiced voluntarily by some parishes before that?

 

[ByzCathCantor]

We were way out west (California) in what was to become the Eparchy of Van Nuys. I have heard that some of the more “orthodox” leaning priests were exiled out here in those days, so maybe that had something to do with it. I do know that our priest at the time did it, as did every subsequent priest assigned to the parish, to the present day. Even in 1969, we were part of Parma, not Passaic, so that might somewhat explain the difference.

Only we Ruthenians in America could end up having a more “orthodox” leaning church in California during the 70s!

When you say that the full rites of initiation were restored effective Palm Sunday 1997, does that mean that they became mandated by the Bishop at that time? Were they allowed and practiced voluntarily by some parishes before that?

Yes, that became the new prescribed practice as of that date in the entire Eparchy. Reception into the Church from that point forward (infants or adults) would be via the full Rites of Christian Initiation (Baptism, Chrismation and Holy Eucharist at the same time). It may have been permitted before that, I couldn’t say, but the new Ritual wasn’t published and made available much before then, so practically speaking, I don’t think it would have been practiced beforehand.

I have been told, however, that it would have been possible to restore the Rites after the Norms of Particular Law for the Pittsburgh Metropolia were adopted in June 1990 (which officially unwound a good deal of “Latinization”). I do believe the full Rites were restored in the Eparchy of Parma earlier, while +Bishop Andrew was still there. He wasted little time after becoming Bishop of Passaic in taking this action and mandating the current Lenten norms, with parishes being required to have the Liturgy of Presanctified Gifts each week during Lent. We started using his service book from the Eparchy of Parma right away for that purpose.

 

[Byz_Guy]

Just to clarify. The Particular Law for the Ruthenian Church was promulgated in 1999, not 1990. The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches was promulgated in 1990.

It was section 51 of this document issued in 1996 that gave the strongest boost to the restoration of infant communion to the Eastern Catholic Churches:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/orientchurch/Istruzione/pdf/istruzione_inglese.pdf

As has been observed, many Eastern Catholic Churches have restored this while some have not.

 

[Vico]

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.

The first historical mention of baptism of children, a prerequisite for the reception of the Mystery of Communion, is by Tertullian (circa 160 – 225 A.D.). He did not favor baptism, except in danger of death, before age 3.

From Schaff:

“Tertullian suggests, that it was usually based on the invitation of Christ: “Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not.” The usage of sponsors, to which Tertullian himself bears witness, although he disapproves of it, and still more, the almost equally ancient abuse of infant communion, imply the existence of infant baptism.”

See *§ 73. Infant Baptism. here:

ccel.org/s/schaff/history/2_ch05.htm

Read what Mark Bonocore has written on the topic:

philvaz.com/apologetics/a26.htm

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Just to clarify. The Particular Law for the Ruthenian Church was promulgated in 1999, not 1990. The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches was promulgated in 1990.

It was section 51 of this document issued in 1996 that gave the strongest boost to the restoration of infant communion to the Eastern Catholic Churches:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/orientchurch/Istruzione/pdf/istruzione_inglese.pdf

As has been observed, many Eastern Catholic Churches have restored this while some have not.

ByzGuy - thanks so much for the post - “my bad” on two counts. Yes, the Norms were promulgated in 1999. And the Instructions for Applying the Code of Canons in 1996 were in part designed to prompt us to accelerate the process of “de-Latinization”. As I mentioned, the Rites of Christian Initiation were restored in the Eparchy of Passaic in early 1997 (which the laity tended to attribute to the arrival of + Bishop Andrew more than anything else), and that chronology makes sense all considered.

It is ironic that we were criticized by Rome some time after the adoption of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches for not moving quickly enough to restore our traditions. The irony, of course, is that we were slowed down once again when it came to the Norms, when +Metropolitan Judson attempted to restore full autonomy with respect to ordination of married to the priesthood, ultimately with only limited success (Rome reserving the right to authorize such on a case by case basis).

I should have went to bed earlier last night …

 

[babochka]

Only we Ruthenians in America could end up having a more “orthodox” leaning church in California during the 70s!

That’s funny! I had no idea how hilarious that sounded when I first wrote. True, though.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Okay, I now confirmed we’ll also be preparing the kids for First Confession.