Historical age of first communion

[Whitney]

In having a discussion about communion in my EO parish I was told that first communion being around 7 years old was a “new” (at least not original) development and that the RCC at some point communed infants. I can’t seem to corroborate this on the internet… anyone know the history?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Quam Singulari - Papal Encyclicals

 

[ziapueblo]

From what I have learned, all of Christianity for the first millennium, baptized, chrismated and communed infants, all in one liturgical ceremony. Sometime in the 11th century because in the West the bishop is the ordinary minister of confirmation and the diocese was more spread out (?) confirmation was delayed, but only a few months maybe a year, so infants and toddlers where receiving communion.

ZP

 

[Whitney]

Thanks! Case closed the first few paragraphs were the exact thing I was looking for

 

[Tis_Bearself]

It was in keeping with a general trend in the Latin Catholic Church for some centuries to discourage frequent communion for everybody. People were thought to be generally unworthy of receiving Communion, and as the encyclical says, it was treated as a reward for people who were especially “good” rather than a help for ordinary sinners. I recall reading that a particular religious order had communion only 6 times a year.

 

[dochawk]

Sometime in the 11th century because in the West the bishop is the ordinary minister of confirmation and the diocese was more spread out (?) confirmation was delayed, but only a few months maybe a year, so infants and toddlers where receiving communion.

That’s confirmation, but the separation of Communion from Baptism was a side effect of withholding gate cup–infants received the Blood as they couldn’t chew yet, and with the withholding, they had to wait until they could handle the solid bread.

Infant communion is quite literally a couple of drops.

The cup was withheld to flush out heretics that claimed the Eucharist was incomplete unless both species were received (was that Albigensianism?). It’s jus that the church took something like seven centuries to get around to undoing the temporary disciplinary measure . . .

hawk

 

[Usige]

The cup was withheld to flush out heretics that claimed the Eucharist was incomplete unless both species were received (was that Albigensianism?).

That heresy would fall under the Hussites. More correctly it is the heresy of Ultraquism (both) or Calixtiism (from Latin for chalice or cup). Albigensianism was a rehashing of earlier heresies that professes a dualism in creation, with a evil principle that created the physical world and the good principle creating the spiritual.

It’s jus that the church took something like seven centuries to get around to undoing the temporary disciplinary measure . . .

It’s still common in many places to only receive the consecrated host. During one of our liturgy classes, our priest instructor pointed out that the rubrics only speak of the chalice, not multiple chalices. He said the use of multiple chalices is somewhat unusual in the life of the Church. There are plenty of people in the US that I have met that sometimes border on Ultraquism when they say that the laity must receive the chalice because Christ said eat and drink. Obviously just bad catechesis, but more common that I would expect.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I have a parish priest who when administering the consecrated host, always says “Blood of Christ”. I have received from him a number of times now so I know I’m not mishearing. I presume he is trying to catechize people on this issue as he is from Africa and really into trying to catechize the parish.