Infant Communion and Confirmation

[malphono]

Only from observation at Eastern Rite churches, I have noticed that infants are usually given some of the precious blood, however as they become toddelers, they only get a blessing, until “the age of reason”. I’ve not really asked anyone, just never really considered it. If I have a chance this Sunday, I’ll ask the priest. The only place I’ve seen toddlers administered communion is in the Maronite Rite. But then again, I don’t go to the Eastern Rite Every week, and I rotate among the various Rites, as there are so many to choose from in Los Angeles.

What age group do you mean when you say “toddlers?”

The reason I ask is because, while the Maronite Church does Chrismate at Baptism, it has not restored the practice of infant communion. It has, rather, kept the latinized custom of “first communion” at around age 6 or so (the usual “first grade” thing).

 

[bpbasilphx]

I was going to say something un-nice to you about that little comment bpbasilphx. As it is, I’ll just say, “rack off, there was no need for that”.

I ain’t no gnostic. There is nothing at all wrong with having knowledge of the Sacrament and its effects before receiving. I never said that the gifts couldn’t be received if one didn’t understand what was going on.

Then why did you say this?

Does “Age of Reason” mean anything to you guys? What about knowing what is being received?

The Byzantine discipline is infant Baptism, Chrismation, and Communion. This godly order was the original custom in the West, as well until a rationalistic idea of “faith” entered the picture.

I stand by what I said: To say that mere human intelligence is necessary for God’s grace in the Mysteries to work is gnosticism.

I might say that the arguments against infant Christmation and Communion are the same ones that sectarians raise against infant baptism. After all do infants “know what is being received” in baptism?

Please note that the name of this forum is “Traditional Catholicism”–NOT “Traditional Latin Catholicism.” Infant communion is the traditional Catholic practice in the East.

 

[pickguard1]

I might say that the arguments against infant Christmation and Communion are the same ones that sectarians raise against infant baptism. After all do infants “know what is being received” in baptism?

This is the conclusion that I have come to after actually thinking about it (really for the first time in my life-up until about a week and a half ago I didn’t even have a reason to question the practice of the Roman Church-not question as in call it wrong, but question as in wonder why-since I had no idea the practice had been anything other than what I did and went through (baptism as an infant, communion and confession at age 7 (age of reason) and confirmation at 14). But really, it all boils down to custom (discipline), rather than there being an actual requirement for a person to be able to use his or her reason in understanding the sacraments. The custom (discipline) in the west is that one must be of the age of reason, but it certainly could never be a de fide doctrine, since that would be gnosticism. I am tending to think though, that even the discipline has the unfortunate side effect of presenting itself as leaning towards gnosticism in it’s principles. (Although this is simply from it’s inititial appearance and poor catechesis of the laity-myself included). Nonetheless, doing all the sacraments of initiation at baptism would eliminate the possibility that someone could misconstrue the purely supernatural origin and valid reception of the sacraments.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Nonetheless, doing all the sacraments of initiation at baptism would eliminate the possibility that someone could misconstrue the purely supernatural origin and valid reception of the sacraments.

---

Very good point.

 

[mardukm]

That may take a little research.

However in former Spanish colonies, priests would confirm and give first communion to infants at baptism, as the infant mortality rate was very high. The indult to do so was so the graces of the sacraments could be availible to the little one’s soul. The practice was still present among Hispanic Catholics in New Mexico and Arizona up until the 1950’s in some places a little later.

My wife, who is Filipina, had her first communion or confirmation (she’s not exactly sure)when she was 4 years old (in the Philippines).

Blessings

 

[Rising_Suns]

Since the Eucharist and Confirmation bestow supernatural graces, there isn’t a need to “know what they mean”, anymore than there is a need for an infant to “know” what baptism is about.

Notwithstanding the age of this thread, it nonetheless still appears in Google search results. So I thought I’d chime in here, and by quoting St. Paul on the matter, who seems to disagree with the above logic;

“But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.” - 1 Cor. 11:27

Another consideration. We have to remember that Catholicism is the fulfillment of Judaism, since Christ came to fulfill the law, not abolish it. In like manner, the Eucharist is the fulfillment of the Old Testament sacrifice of the Passover lamb. It may be worth exploring this matter further, but in my understanding of Jewish tradition (which could be in error), children were not required to participate in the Passover meal, to atone for sin, since children do not have any personal sin to atone for. Whereas Baptism at infancy is necessary in order to clean the soul from the stain of original sin.

And so, withholding Communion from children is, in a sense, actually a confirmation of their purity and perfection, who as Christ indicated are like angels enclothed in flesh. It is also a further testament to the absolute efficacy of the cleansing power of Baptism, which is superabundantly sufficient to purify a child’s soul. The graces we receive in the Eucharist, help us to return to that child-like state of innocense.

Just a few thoughts worth mentioning perhaps.

Blessings,

Davide

 

[Rising_Suns]

Forgot to also mention in passing; there is also the practicial implication of the infant spitting out the host because it taste bad, or in some way not treating it reverently. When a child begins to desire the sacrament and ask questions about it, this is probably a good indication the child’s readiness to receive it.

 

[Hesychios]

Notwithstanding the age of this thread, it nonetheless still appears in Google search results. So I thought I’d chime in here, and by quoting St. Paul on the matter, who seems to disagree with the above logic;
“But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.” - 1 Cor. 11:27
Another consideration. We have to remember that Catholicism is the fulfillment of Judaism, since Christ came to fulfill the law, not abolish it. In like manner, the Eucharist is the fulfillment of the Old Testament sacrifice of the Passover lamb. It may be worth exploring this matter further, but in my understanding of Jewish tradition (which could be in error), children were not required to participate in the Passover meal, to atone for sin, since children do not have any personal sin to atone for. Whereas Baptism at infancy is necessary in order to clean the soul from the stain of original sin.

And so, withholding Communion from children is, in a sense, actually a confirmation of their purity and perfection, who as Christ indicated are like angels enclothed in flesh. It is also a further testament to the absolute efficacy of the cleansing power of Baptism, which is superabundantly sufficient to purify a child’s soul. The graces we receive in the Eucharist, help us to return to that child-like state of innocense.

Just a few thoughts worth mentioning perhaps.

Blessings,

Davide

Since ALL of the Apostolic churches with the exception of the Roman one (but including the Roman Catholic church at one time) have the tradition of communing infants, I would say the argument did not hold for early Christians and is not valid today.

This is important to recognize: The Roman Catholic church originally communed infants, and when it changed this practice it became the only Apostolic church that did not commune it’s own infants.

Changing policy and practice hundreds of years later cannot be justified by a re- reading of scripture, this is exactly what Protestant reformers decided to do, and they seem to have adopted this practice as Roman Catholic priests, unfortunately.

Saint Vincent of Lerins wrote:
… owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters.

Better to stick to Apostolic tradition, which addressed the issue from the beginning, in the days of Christ.

 

[pickguard1]

Notwithstanding the age of this thread, it nonetheless still appears in Google search results. So I thought I’d chime in here, and by quoting St. Paul on the matter, who seems to disagree with the above logic;

“But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.” - 1 Cor. 11:27

Another consideration. We have to remember that Catholicism is the fulfillment of Judaism, since Christ came to fulfill the law, not abolish it. In like manner, the Eucharist is the fulfillment of the Old Testament sacrifice of the Passover lamb. It may be worth exploring this matter further, but in my understanding of Jewish tradition (which could be in error), children were not required to participate in the Passover meal, to atone for sin, since children do not have any personal sin to atone for. Whereas Baptism at infancy is necessary in order to clean the soul from the stain of original sin.

And so, withholding Communion from children is, in a sense, actually a confirmation of their purity and perfection, who as Christ indicated are like angels enclothed in flesh. It is also a further testament to the absolute efficacy of the cleansing power of Baptism, which is superabundantly sufficient to purify a child’s soul. The graces we receive in the Eucharist, help us to return to that child-like state of innocense.

Just a few thoughts worth mentioning perhaps.

Blessings,

Davide

Sorry for the full requote, but I’m posting from myamp less than capable phone.
As to the last paragraph, I think it is quite possible that the practice of waiting to administer communion til the are of reason was begun to combat the particular heresy that one couldn’t gain heaven without it…“unless a man eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man etc.” That is to say, to make it clear that baptism all by itself was sufficient for those without personal sin. Now of course this has the unfortunate problem of trying to combat that heresy and also being able to be labeled, by some, as a form of gnosticism. However, knowledge of the sacrament wasn’t the reason behind the change, I don’t think, so the gnosticism aspect is a result of misunderstanding the original intention. But it can still be misinterpreted that way, and in fact is what I was taught in Catholic elementary school, so even religious and priests have had poor formation. On this. I don’t recall all the discussion in this thread since it has been a while so I hope I’m not repeating myself.

As for St. Paul, I think it is plain that he is saying that you must not be concious of grave sin, and this was also an admonishement to those who did not believe the body and blood were truly present…“discerning the body…”

I do see the argument for the risk of an infant spitting out the host, but I think this was stressed earlier, that since Christ is present under both species exactly the same and fully, infants can be given the Precious Blood in a dropper, there is not a specific need for them to receive the Lord in the host if they are unable…

P.s. thanks for resurrecting this thread! I had forgotten much about it and I’ll have to go back through again.

Peace be with you!

 

[ThatOneGuy92]

Forgot to also mention in passing; there is also the practicial implication of the infant spitting out the host because it taste bad, or in some way not treating it reverently. When a child begins to desire the sacrament and ask questions about it, this is probably a good indication the child’s readiness to receive it.

There are canons, I believe, that state if infants and those with a handicap that causes them to do this, that it is not held against them by man or God.