In reality it is the UNIVERSAL tradition of the Church to Baptize, Confirm, and administer the Eucharist, all to infants at the time of Baptism. For a number of PRACTICAL reasons in the West this was changed. I do NOT think it is prideful to encourage the Church to return to her roots and Traditions.
Once again who can really “UNDERSTAND” the Eucharist? The Eucharist is a Mystery not meant to be “understood”.
The reasons were guided by the light of the Holy Spirit. It is not up to me to question them. As for the universality of the tradition, it would not seem so, since the vast majority of Christianity for a very, very long time has not done thins this way.
Mind you, I am considered a “traditionalist” in the good meaning of the word, committed to several apostolates to encourage the Church to rediscover some great treasures of the faith, and I always encourage the reading of the Church Fathers to grasp the faith at a time where there was no Bible as we understand it now…
However, there is a major difference between promoting the “holding on to the tradition” of which the blessed apostles speaks of, and what we term the “vindication of the rights of antiquity”, that desire to somewhat restore the lost greatness of the Early Church which has been a root component of all Protestant heresies. I am presenting this not as an accusation (God forbid! your post is very edifying as also your intentions are!) but to make my point understandable and clarify why I spoke about pride in this context.
The Liturgy is Tradition at its strongest and best, and it is a growing Tradition, a mighty tree born of a tiny seed. Those who do not defend Tradition but instead vindicate antiquity affirm that we ought to return to the primitive, to the cradle of the Christian institutions, that the divine cult ought to be restored to its original purity, and yet, as Church Father Iraeaneus wrote, “they can bring about no ‘reformation’ of enough importance to compensate for the evil arising”.
In the early ages of the Church, confirmation was part of the rite of initiation, and consequently was administered immediately after baptism by the bishop. When, however, baptism came to be conferred by simple priests, while confirmation remains the privilege of the bishop, the two ceremonies were separated in the Western Church. Further, if the baptized was an infant, confirmation was not administered until the child had attained the use of reason.
Confirmation became a much more important rite when concerns about understanding and faith grew, in particular following the Reformation. The Council of Trent agreed that Confirmation can be administered to all persons after baptism, but that this is not expedient before the use of reason; and adds that it is most fitting that the sacrament be deferred until the child is seven years old, “for Confirmation has not been instituted as necessary for salvation, but that by virtue thereof we might be found well armed and prepared when called upon to fight for the faith of Christ, and for this kind of conflict no one will consider children, who are still without the use of reason, to be qualified.”
As for Communion: this is not about understanding the Eucharist, but about understanding who is the Eucharist. Nobody can understand God, but everyone receiving the divine mystery must ideally understand that God is really present, or as Cyril of Jerusalem writes, we must ideally be able to “not regard the bread and wine as simply that… for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ.” And he adds: “even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm.”. Now how can someone prior to the age of reason be made firm in faith, if he cannot grasp this? This, at least, is the understanding of the Catholic Church: know who you are receiving, be able to lift our eyes to the Bread of Life and hear in our heart the psalm: “
be still, and know that I am God”.
Will this change in the future? I do not know and I do not hope so, for I profoundly believe that understanding is essential. Christ came in the flesh to reveal us a visible image/icon of the invisible God, and He said He no longer called us servants because servants don’t understand, but friends, because friends do understand. Matter of fact, I believe from my experience of catechism that Confirmation would better be hold until true adulthood and maturity are present, and after years of dedicated catechesis, though I rejoice that now children from the age of seven can receive the Lord in the Eucharist.
I just meant that it seems to be more fruitful when the communicant knows what is happening, because the grace we receive is not just ex opere operato, but also according to the disposition of our soul. Again, I am no legislator on these matters, I am just trying to learn and understand.